Talk:Creation myth/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Lead

I have removed the paragraph containing modern fictional accounts of creation. These are not myths and are not mentioned in the body of the article (rightly so). The lead is for summarising the article not for introducing new material, especially material which has no place in the article. Abtract (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

An Observation

Shouldn't this article be dealing with creation myths in general? By "general" i mean something like explaining what creation myths are, what their main characteristics are, their classification, division, similarities and differences. By my opinion, this article shouldn't contain particular creation myths (they ought to be in their own separate articles). An exception to this would, of course, be their use as an example to clarify something. -- Optimus Pryme (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Scientology and Xenu

I don't think this should be included, as the Xenu story isn't really a creation myth. --Rob (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Religious Myths?

I'm curious, is this implying that religion like say Christianity's description of the creation of man and the universe not true? Things like this are hardly fictitious, they are unproven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the archives. Ilkali (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

... and the common dictionary definitions of myth. DVdm (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at the dictionary but the reason I asked this was because the definition has several different meanings. I was curious which one this one implies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In a scholarly context, like an encyclopedia, the word myth is never assumed to mean 'not true'. The first definition in the link given by DVdm sounds reasonable. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"... I was curious which one this one implies." => all of them of course. That's the point of having more than one dictionary :-)

By the way, please don't forget to sign your talk page comments with 4 tildes (~~~~). Thanks, DVdm (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

But on that particular page, two of those definitions say the following:

"An invented story" "an unproven or false collective belief"

To say "Creation Myth" and to use all of those definitions would imply that the religious explanation for Creation was either invented or is fake.

My point is we don't know that. The only truth to the second one is that it is unproven.

I'll register. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk)

I presume DVdm meant that all the dictionaries applied (the link given lists quite a few dictionaries, each with several definitions). Ben (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

To 68.51.41.46: Please sign your talk page comments with 4 tildes. Thank you, (DVdm (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)).

That's what I presumed as well, but out of some of them, the same as the 2 I listed are used as a definition, which is why I am confused as to why all of them then, would be used.

If a Creation Myth defined by this article is a religious story or explanation to how we came to be, defining it as unproven and a collective belief by many people usually defined by many as fact would seem more appropriate than "a false collective belief or an invented story". 68.51.41.46 (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You are "confused as to why all of them then, would be used"? ==> It goes as follows. One of your choice would be used by you. Perhaps another of my choice would be used by me. Probably yet another of Ben's choice would be used by Ben. In short, all of them would be used by all of us. That is how we deal with multiple definitions in multiple dictionaries. "Voor elk wat wils", as we say in Dutch. DVdm (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose anyone can take it to mean what they want (with or without reference to a dictionary even), but as far as the encyclopaedia goes, please see Wikipedia:WTA#Myth_and_legend. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a question...why is creation considered a myth, but evolution isn't?? Just curious... 99.168.95.49 (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Because creation falls under the definition of myth:"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."

Evolution per se is a scientific fact, the scientific theory of evolution explains how evolution, which is the change inherent in generations of life, happens. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "scientific fact" as this can be argued in many senses of the word. It's still a theory with holes in it, not yet at the level of "fact". Too many people assume Evolution has been proven. However, you are right in the sense that Evolution isn't a myth. 68.51.41.46 (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You may find Evolution as theory and fact interesting. Cheers, Ben (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I still wouldn't say it's absolute fact. There are too many holes and problems with the theory in itself which is why I don't believe it to be as such.

Thank you for the link, however. However, I still stand by my comment that people need to stop parading it as fact in a sense.68.51.41.46 (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree with 68.51.41.46. all religions are based on faith, and until there is is undeniable proof (not "is is believed..." as usually given in some textbooks and artilces), then evolution is also a faith.216.118.231.66 (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)faith

Evolution is a scientific theory as opposed to a religion. No matter, reliable sources would be required identifying a sacred narrative (myth) in evolution. Although there are mythological aspects (as far as perspectives in popular culture) to both evolution and the big bang theory, as yet no one has presented here any reliable scholarship on the matter. Until that point, arguments about whether or not these constitute "creation myths" are moot. We go with what the sources say. 02:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are selectively ignoring Big_bang_theory#Observational_evidence — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay seriously, this article needs to renamed. Myth implies superstition. You might as well say that any idea about the origins of life is a myth. And in the origins of life article, there should be more info on the religious idea. There is much secular bias on wikipedia. I personally God is a God of religion and science, and im okay that not everyone believes that. However, I do not appreciate the fact that religion in general is tossed to the side as an 'alternate myth.' That is just kind of obnoxious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.180.181 (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Read our article religion and mythology. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Geographical note

India is a nation in the continent of Asia, the region of South Asia, the subregion of the Indian Subcontinent. The easiest way to make all the headings correct would be to make Asia -->>> East Asia and India --->> South Asia, or if you feel like preserving Asia as Asia, to make India -->> Indian Subcontinent. As it stands, I would disagree with India having its own heading instead of being under the heading of Asia. Virsingh (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments sought

I'd like to request comments from editors of this page about a piece of policy that is likely to effect it. Please see the discussion here. Ben (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Cite request

I have tagged the sentence "The term creation myth is sometimes used in a derogatory way to describe stories which are still believed today" as needing a cite. This is simply because I have never come across the combined term used in this way - "myth" has its own ambiguities, but "Creation Myth" is more specific.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete it imo. Ben (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, edit conflicts! Was about to say

Let me clarify that a bit. The term "myth" may be seen as derogatory, but the term "creation myth" is not. To use an analogy once presented to me: we would not talk about "the theory about relativity by Einstein", we talk about "the theory of relativity by Einstein". The word theory has its own connotations; "the theory of relativity" refers to a specific model about which we have no doubt. I am just wondering if the sentence I quoted above was inserted to meekly mollify those who simply object to the term "myth" but who do not recognise that "creation myth" is a phrase with its own, far more specific meaning.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. I changed "need" to "may" in the following sentence, which imo more than adequately covers the possibility that any one story just might be true - daft though that idea is, some people still believe it.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This artical is a mockary of Wiki's nutrality!

This article is a utterly mockery of everything wiki stands for! Who on this Earth would say anything about this article is "neutral"? Calling every religion a "myth"? It's absurd! Its nothing but political propaganda.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.163.66 (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, which 1 religion would you rather we not label with the term myth? Rreagan007 (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Mine, of course. --KP Botany (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No, MINE! DVdm (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• attempting to inject some reason into the patien- err- discussion

Myth need not mean false; it just so happens that it by default implies falsehood or fabrication in ordinary conversation. C.S. Lewis, an Oxford professor, toed the line between factuality and faith by calling Christianity 'the true myth'. Religion, almost by definition, is an attempt by self-aware beings to comprehend and fit into ultimate reality, not mere scientific reality. Hence, it is difficult to categorize any religion as either wholly fanciful or substantially credible without generating objection and controversy. WP is considered to be a database of knowledge, and knowledge is generally thought to be obtained through scientific and scholarly inquiry. Hence to be 'neutral' and address the 'default' mindset of the 'average' person, the scientific explanation of origins is treated as being fact-based, because an attempt to evaluate the factuality of every religion's claim would be variously impossible, absurd, or 'leading the reader' into conclusions they can reach on their own if they choose to do so.
Additionally, not all religious views are wholly unsupported by evidence, but at least as regards Cosmogony, no religious view can be said to be wholly 'scientific' because they all ultimately point to something beyond the scope of science; the supernatural.
I therefore propose that the article title be changed to Creation beliefs, because all myths were believed at some point, but not all beliefs are wholly mythical.
And if you have an opinion on something, at least spell it correctly.

HuntingTarg (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The article should not try to judge which, if any, creation story has been determined to be in accord with current scientific thought. The title "myth" imples all to be mere fairytale. Grantmidnight (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not judging, it is using the proper word for the implied meaning of a religious story with supernatural elements which describes the origins of the world. Look it up. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no creation myth (at least none on this page) is in accord with current scientific though on the origins of the universe. But that isn't the purpose of this article anyway. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Rreagan007 is correct (although I think he means consensus instead of all *thought* (a 2nd misspelling; I trust these aren't attempts at trolling...) ), and although that discussion would make a roaring forum topic, such a discussion doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
The fact that the primary definition of 'myth' has nothing to say about the veracity of such stories does not negate the fact that the word carries the connotation by means of secondary definitions. This seems quite evident without consulting a dictionary, although the term belief is similarly problematic in that it implies the article is simply about current views on the origin of the world &/ universe.
*sigh* Having read the archives (as recommended in above sections), this problem seems to have degenerated into a semantic debate that is unlikely to satisfy both sides. What bothers me is that in light of well-posited points about the difficulty of the current title ('myth'), one side seems to have come to rest on the issue without any attmept at clarification.
While about Wikipedia (sec 2.5) readily admits that problems of this kind will inevitably occur, it seems simple and straightforward enough to follow the recommendation in NPOV (sec 2.1) of clarifying the title in the lead section. This should at least quell further discussion, since it does not appear that a 'perfect solution' exists. It would almost certainly be less troublesome than coming back to this page again and again to answer the same objection.
HuntingTarg (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like the most reasonable solution to me as well. Sventington the Second 12:53 A.M., 12 May 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 04:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

The mythology article, which is linked to in the first sentence, is for discussing definitions. Ben (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Lock page

This page seems to be inviting vandalism from those who choose to believe nonsense. I suggest locking it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beelidge uglow (talk • contribs) 12:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC) You have just justified the existence of the first section. And if you are really convinced of that, read above section.
HuntingTarg (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Judgemental

The label of "myth" has been discussed several times here and elsewhere in WK; resolution is still not achieved. Most dictionary definitions allow several meanings. For example Webster indicates a "traditional story" and says a myth has only an "imaginary or unverifiable existence". Myth certainly has a connotation of a fairytale to many people. Much better would be to call these Creation Stories: stories can be true or false or just traditional. It is vital that WK present a Neutral Point of View. The label of myth is not neutral: A judgement has been made by editors that these stories are not factual. Whether we agree with the stories or not, we must not cast judgement. This article needs to present a neutral discussion of these stories. Grantmidnight (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"A judgement has been made by editors that these stories are not factual". Read the archives. Ilkali (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some editors have tried to make that point. That violates the strict policy of neutraliy:NPOV. Grantmidnight (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Read the archives. Ilkali (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The word myth, in a depth psychology sense, does not mean that it is objectively untrue, but rather that it is subjectively true (irrespective of its objective factuality). In other words, there is a difference between a myth and a tale. A tale doesn't need to have subjective meaning. It can be objectively true but subjectively meaningless. A myth does have subjective meaning. Creation stories, by their very nature, have subjective meaning. For this reason I do not object to the use of the word myth here. However, I do object to the use of Wikipedia as a connotative means of changing other people's belief system. Using "myth" for the purpose of expressing your own POV (i.e. this isn't factually true) is a violation of Wikipedia standards. The title of the article is correct. The motivations given by Ilkali, on the other hand, are not.EGMichaels (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ilkali was quoting someone. Ben (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just came here to find out more about Ilkali, and I shouldn't have spoken up so soon anyway. Thanks for the correction. Dor what it's worth, I do approve of the current title.EGMichaels (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Aww what? Ilkali has a stalker? I'm jealous. Ben (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Not quite! I was just asking him on another article what his motivation was, since his stated motivation didn't make any sense to me. He accused me of being two other people instead of answering my question, so I decided to figure out what made him tick. He's not answering questions here either. It's just "read the archives" and "I'm a one man consensus." Trying to figure out if I should reason with him or avoid him, and I'm thinking of the latter.EGMichaels (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"Stories" is much too narrow. A story could have been created this morning. Myths are more like stories based on stories based on ..., for all practical purposes, ad infinitum. That is implied in Webster's optional "unverifiable existence". Myths still "can be true or false or just traditional". Those who don't fully understand Webster's phrase are free to use other dictionaries. And of course, since indeed like you say "most dictionary definitions allow several meanings", the usage of the word guarantees the very essence of neutrality - clearly orthogonal to judgementality. Read the (endless) archives. DVdm (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is clear from this discussion and the archives that neutrality, NPOV, has been debated and is far from resolved. The article is tagged to reflect this continuing problem. Resolution needs to be found to a less controversial title and judgement about the subject. Grantmidnight (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.answers.com/topic/myth Myth...A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the world view of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: eg. the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth. I fail to see why this is not neutral? Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What is clear is that this page has seen dozens of people like you, with the same knee-jerk reaction and the same tendency to ignore consensus-driven decisions and guidelines. Ilkali (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. This article currently takes various religious beliefs of creation and reduces them to "myth". This perjorative term is not neutral. Continuing interest in this issue makes it clear that it has never been resolved. The article needs to be tagged with NPOV. Grantmidnight (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Read.

The.

Archives. Ilkali (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please honor the WK policy of not deleting a NPOV tag until the issue is resolved

Please read the archives: These show a continuing and unresolved debate about WP editors judging that religious beliefs about creation are mere myth. Grantmidnight (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You haven't the slightest understanding of the position you're attacking, and with pages of archives clarifying it ad nauseum, you have no excuse for being so ignorant. There's no point arguing with you until you understand what you're arguing against and bring something new to the table. Otherwise there is no "until the issue is resolved". There is no issue. Ilkali (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks. The issue is that the label of "myth" on religious beliefs is not impartial, is not objective, and prohibibs balance. Editors must not allow their personal judgements to dominate the requirement of objectivity. Grantmidnight (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

These aren't personal attacks. I'm not calling you stupid, I'm just saying that you haven't researched prior discussion and are consequently ignorant both of the opposing view and of the numerous and oft-repeated counterarguments made against your view. Bring something new to the discussion or expect to be ignored. Ilkali (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is entitled "creation myths" because it is about creation myths ... end of story. Abtract (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of just saying this article needs to be renamed, I have a suggestion. Why is this not called "Creation Theory". This implies that these theories could or could not be true and does not have the negative conotation that the word myth has. AS you can see here "theory", the definition of theory describes perfectly what everyone is trying to achieve.

On a seperate note there is several people saying that the concensus is to use "myth". Obviously this is not the case or we would not be having this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miarmyguy (talk • contribs) 04:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Should we also rename Mythology into Theoriology? Makes no sense to me. Who are those "everyone"? --Cubbi (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Creation myth" is a very specific term that lacks the ambiguities and potentially negative connotations of "myth" when used on its own. The lead of this article makes it abundantly clear what the term means. It is defining "Creation myth", not "myth". Apart from anything else, the various stories are all contradictary - at best only one of them could be true. By defining a creation myth as a story or (the even more generous) "explanation", there is no issue of neutrality here. If the lead said something like "A creation myth is a myth about creation" there might have been an issue because this would require a definition of "myth"; but it doesn't, so there isn't.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent point that only one of them could be completely true. Consequently, all the rest would have to be (at least partly) false. The term "creation myth" is an excellent term to express the fact that all (but possibly 1) traditional account of creation must contain at least some inaccuracies. And since we have no way of determining which 1 is (possibly) a completely accurate account of creation, they all have to be labeled as myths. To attempt to pick out which 1 is completely accurate would be POV. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not an 'excellent' term unless this is intended for use exclusively by historians and scholars. Read below section.
HuntingTarg (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Creation Theory or Creation Story are much less judgemental. Myth indicates to many readers that WK has determined these stories to be false. Grantmidnight (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the editors stating that this has been discussed ad nauseum in the archives. The book of Genesis was orally transmitted for centuries before finally being penned at around 1000 BC (although 500 BC is generally more accepted) can't possibly be 100% accurate from the original eye-wittiness accounts, baring some sort of supernatural explanation. And it clearly includes supernatural elements in the story. Just because some people hold the religious belief that it is true doesn't make it any less of a traditional myth than does any of the other religious creation stories. The Genesis account of creation is a myth in the context of this article with all the other creation stories from other cultures and beliefs. Outside of that context a sub-set of people do believe it to be more then a myth. This article isn't about addressing what a sub-set of the population believes but is about all creation myths. I'm sure you'll find pages and pages of discussion on this topic in the archives, and any further discussion isn't likely to change the consensus of the primary editors of this article. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The extensive archives and the continuing discussions make it very clear that a consensus has not been achieved. There is strong support of using more neutral language. Grantmidnight (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't really understand the opposition to more neutral terms other than wanting to marginalize certain viewpoints. Sure, the dictionary may allow for multiple definitions, but myth clearly has connotations which suggest the story is false. I personally don't believe in any of the creation stories I've heard, but I'm not out to marginalize them. Creation stories, a title you've previously suggested, is the best suggestion I've seen thus far.

However, is it unacceptable to revisit an issue once wikipedia staff or whatever have stepped in and ruled on it? If so, then I guess we have to live with it. Nonetheless specific terms seem to detract from the NPOV aim, but I guess that's bound to happen at times. Sventington the Second (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

After reading WP:NPOV (and I'm assuming you have since you're quoting it) it's clear that the term in this context is perfectly neutral. Avoiding it would not be. Not liking it, either you personally or some group you're valiantly defending (because you don't believe these stories right?), means nothing. We're here to build an encyclopaedia, and concerning ourselves with how others feel about certain pieces of knowledge is contrary to that goal. It's that simple. Ben (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand, but are you saying using a word like story as opposed to myth would be biased/not neutral? Or the practice of choosing certain words communicating similar things but specifically chosen not to offend is not neutral as it is designed to appease certain people? In reading over earlier comments I can understand the objection to using story instead of myth as myth seems to better bring out the cultural component, but were another word found which brought out the cultural component, would you be opposed to it? I'm not exactly a thesaurus so I don't have any other suggestions right now, but are you or other adament about stressing the word myth? Sventington the Second (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't know of a better word either, the word myth really is the right word. Perhaps there is an equivalent word, but stopping to think for a second, we're seriously discussing replacing a perfectly correct term here, and for what purpose? Because someone doesn't like it? That's hardly a compelling reason. More important than what you, me or someone else thinks is what terminology reliable sources on the topic use, and it's overwhelmingly myth - from specialised sources right down to common references like Encyclopedia Britannica. So on top of it being correct, it's a standard term. Avoiding such a well used and perfect term for the sake of the sensibilities of some group of readers is not neutral, far from professional and annoying for people who use anything more than Wikipedia to learn about these things. I hope that is a little clearer. Ben (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's perfectly clear. In fact, it seems like myth is the probably most appropriate word to use after all, regardless of if there are alternatives. I went and took a look at dictionary.reference.com and was given this definition:

a.A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.

which seems to be exactly what's being discussed/outlined in this article. In light of this I admit I was wrong to object, I guess it was just a knee-jerk reaction based on my understanding of the word. Sorry for wasting anyone's time! Sventington the Second (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You didn't waste anyone's time - a few replies is completely reasonable. Editors who refuse to get the point after months of discussion (two such editors exist) are pro time wasters. Welcome to Wikipedia. Ben (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions are more neutral than PC fads. --Cubbi (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Creation mythS, myths vs. natural science

The present title of the article is misleading: in opposite to the singular, the article is a long listing of diverse Creation mythS. Hence I suggest to rename this article using the plural.

Yet an other shortage of this long listing of diverse Creation mythS is, that the ATHEIST'S CREATION MYTH IS MISSING FROM THIS LONG LIST.

A warning at the top of this discussion page states, that "The article title adheres to this guideline, reflects the consensus among editors here and has been discussed several times in the past.". There in the guideline you can find "In the natural sciences and other academic fields, a theory is a coherent explanation that is consistent with available knowledge and that has passed multiple independent tests. Well-known examples are Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity and the modern evolutionary synthesis". Now going to this last link, you find "Evolutionary theory redirects here", namely to the modern evolutionary synthesis.

DO PLEASE UNDERSTAND THE ATHEISTIC MESSAGE ABOVE:

• the evolutionary sythesis is modern, due to the title of the article

• it is also a theory, due to the redirection

• it has "a coherent explanation that is consistent with available knowledge and that has passed multiple independent tests", due to the Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_with_multiple_meanings guideline

• it is in overall a modern, scientifically verified, reliable truth about the origin/creation of life!

The clue of the misleading atheistic propaganda above is the huge amount of philosophically undereducated natural scientists, and their atheistic interpretors.

I, as an extremely successful competitor in mathematics an physics, suffered a lot due to this strong fighting atheistic propaganda in the communist regime, BECAUSE THEY MADE ME BLIND TO SENSE THE POSSIBILITY OF SUPERNATURAL.

The more science I learned, and the more questions I put concerning the CORRECT NPOV FOUNDATION OF SCIENCES, I slowly understood, that the atheism is only one of the many diverse religious beliefs.

The clue of the error what even quite a few of the leading scientists make is that to identify the real world with any of the possible scientific models!

A model is usually tested only in the situations, which can be accessed and intentionally repeated. The behavior of a tested model in a NOT testified situation does not conlude, does not prove, that the reality behaves the same way in that NOT testified situation.

Big bang and evolution works well in the close environment of our present space-time position, but nobody was able to make any test far beyond the limits of our possibilities.

The question of origin is however far beyond the limits of the natural science.

Any kind of belief concerning our origin can be only a myth, including the atheistic approach.

Be careful, I met already well educated professors in philosophy, but some of them are not NPOV even when they speak in the name of NPOV science!

The NPOV version of the theory of knowledge does not justify the atheism, as a modern scientifically well based theory.

Atheism is in fact a religion. The big bang and the evolution, when it is not used restricted to scientific question, but is used to answer the question of our origin, it is simply a myth.

prohlep (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote above, a myth is a (true or false) story with a point. What is the point (i.e. moral) of the atheistic story of human origins? And if there is a point, was the story itself constructed with that point in mind?EGMichaels (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Atheists have no "creation myth". Saying that the big bang and evolution somehow constitute a creation myth for atheists is just plain wrong. First of all, people who are atheists do not necessarily believe in modern science's best determination as to the origins of the universe and life. For example, some believe the universe has always existed the way it is, something similar to the steady state theory. Secondly, as time goes by, modern science is constantly learning and discovering new things about the origins of the universe, so if an "atheist creation myth" is a conglomeration of the best science of the day, then the creation myth is constantly changing. So the "atheist creation myth" in 1700 (and yes, there were atheists back then too) would be much different from an atheist from 1800, or 1900, or 2000, etc. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

To equate science or belief in scientific explanations as a "religion" is misleading and just false. Creationists like to make this argument because they don't want to feel picked on when it comes to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. To somehow equate science with religion, they feel that would somehow justify allowing supernatural explanations into classrooms. It is false, please read here and here. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you guys are missing the point. The point is that there needs to be a point to a myth. I'm not sure there is a point to the scientific account. It's not designed to have one, and doesn't need one.EGMichaels (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the key components of a myth is a supernatural component, this is absent from scientific abiogenesis, ergo it's not a myth and as a whole science isn't a religion. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Myth"

Lots of discussion (and seems to be emotional reaction) to the term myth to describe creation. I am fairly new here, but wanted to point out to other creationists like myself that this article is about multiple supernatural explanations of creation, thus myth is the appropriate term. There is already a section for specifics of each myth (i.e. Creation in Genesis) that disregards the term and is more specific. I personally might support a change to "creation mythology" just cause it doesn't seem to have AS strong of a connotation for some reason, but am not sure how that might change the structure of the article... Cmiych (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The more emotional reactions here are based on the individuals not appreciating having THEIR OWN chosen creation myth represented here as a myth. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 20:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Cmiych understands that, Kingoomieiii. His point (if I understand it correctly) is that people should not be upset at seeing their own chosen creation myths called "myths" in this article because "this article is about multiple supernatural explanations of creation, thus myth is the appropriate term". Also, by the way, when he wrote "section", I think he meant "article": "There is already an article for specifics of each myth (e.g. Creation according to Genesis) that disregards the term and is more specific." I don't see any disagreement between the two of you here. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Phatius. I am still sorting out my terminology, and had not yet grasped the appropriate presentation of Creation according to Genesis. Your analysis of my comments was dead on. I was merely trying to help diffuse negative reactions to a title that is actually most appropriate, IMO. Thanks. Cmiych (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

And pardon my idiocy. e.g. was definitely the appropriate abbreviation. Thanks for pointing it out. Cmiych (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I try to prevent misunderstandings wherever I can. (I think you're a bit hard on yourself with the "idiocy" remark; I used to use i.e. instead of e.g. all the time.) --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead image

Is the image currently on this article the most appropriate? As discussed, this is about multiple creation myths. Should the image at the beginning be a representing of an artistic representation of a single "myth" or something more overarching? Cmiych (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually the one that made that image the lead image. At the time, there was no lead image in the article, and that was the most iconic creation image I could think of, so it seemed appropriate to me. I'm open to suggestions if you have a better lead image in mind that you would like to recommend. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I will think on it. For the record, I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with the image. I am simply putting it up for consideration that someone might have a better idea for one (though not me at this point). Cmiych (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

lead

The term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story;[4][5] however, the academic use of the term generally does not refer to truth or falsity.

That is what people who seriously write on the subject think, and that is what the article on mythology says. So, something along those lines should be in this article as well. 72.47.38.205 (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the following, which had been inserted as a final paragraph in the lead section, here for discussion

It must be mentioned that the term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to false claims or false stories, while this article uses it in the academic sense, in which calling something a "myth" or not denote something as untrue or true.

I think the wording there is clumsy, particularly the closing phrase. I'll suggest one possible rewording which borrows from the lead section of the Mythology article.

The term myth is often used colloquially to refer to false claims or false stories. This article uses the term in an the academic sense, referring to a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form. The term myth as used in this article should not be construed as a claim about truth or falsity.

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:ASR, WP:NDA, and the mythology article is the article to discuss usage of the term myth. This article is about a particular type of myth and it should stay focused on that. Ben (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a disclaimer. It is a correct statement of fact about what the academic literature describes 'creation myths' as. 72.47.38.205 (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it should be mentioned prominently. Sventington the Second (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ben, your own sandbox states that that "myth" is not simply to be equated with "falsehood" — have become part of mainstream scholarship. 72.47.38.205 (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Til. Ben (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is an idea, just move the article to Creation theory. It is a theory, and myth is avoided. That way there is no problem.--WillC 16:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Creation myths aren't really "theories" about how the universe was created. An article on "creation theories" would encompass things such as the big band, steady state theory, and intelligent design, which is not what this article is supposed to be about. I've thought long and hard to come up with an alternate title for this article, and the only possible alternative I can think of that might be acceptable is "Creation mythology", though I'm not sure "mythology" is any more acceptable of a term to people than "myth". Rreagan007 (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Usually when you think creation theory you think of the Christianity theory. Seeing as no one knows how the universe was actually created, this article should include every theory/myth. The Big Bang is just as plausible as the Christianity belief in creation or anyother belief. None of them have been proven as fact yet, so in a sense, saying myth in this sense of creation in a religious stand-point but theory in a scientific stand-point when neither has been proven is not neutral in my point of view. Plus I'm not on here because I'm a Christian. Just on here to make sure everything is correct. I see alot of atheist on here that tend to ignore NPOV alot (not saying you do if you are an atheist, I don't even know you or come on articles like this alot. I just saw it on page protection and thought to see what was going on). Now I understand this article is mainly about religious beliefs, but why is it so? Instead of using myth in a maybe true or maybe false way, why not just rewrite the lead and say this is a list of creation theories. Expand the article! Otherwise, there is going to be alot of ips come on here being upset, because no matter how it is spun, the first thought that comes to mind for myth is untrue, false, etc. With theory, it is neutral and, well, true. I don't see mythology. Any word that tends to make people think it is false, will just cause trouble. I don't think that is netural.--WillC 17:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A very common misconception; you've mistaken the colloquial meaning of "theory" ("just an idea someone came up with") with the SCIENTIFIC definition. A scientific theory is something with actual, real, observable evidence behind it. Which puts the Big Bang a couple pegs above any creation myth you care to name, in terms of plausibility. Referring to these myths as 'theories' alongside the big bang serves no purpose but to hurt their credibility, and would be irresponsible.--King ♣ Talk 19:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is already very large under its current scope, and you want to expand it to include all plausable theories on the origin of the universe? Even assuming I agreed with you, which I don't, all creation myths are not plausible. There are creation myths in the article that nobody living on Earth today thinks are plausable theories of how the universe came about. You have some creation myths from religions that are no longer practiced by anyone and from cultures that no longer exist. And why not include the Flying Spaghetti Monster while we're at it. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

They are all possible. I know the FSM is supposed to just be a parody of religion and God which is childish for the person who came up with it, but they all have marit. The article could probably be cut down pretty well. When I took my first article to FAC, it was at 50 kilobytes. I thought I would never get it down below 40 nor did I think I would get anyother article of the same type below 40. But I've gotten articles to below 30. It just takes effort. Taking the easy way out doesn't help anything. A simple way to make sure all the articles are correct is better for the project.--WillC 17:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you have good intentions, but frankly I'd rather just delete the whole article than do what you propose. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientology?

Resolved

 – Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 15:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I was wondering why this article does not include a section for the Scientology creation myth? I'm not a scientologist but I figured that it could be put out there since it is a unique interpretation of the beginning of existence. Thanks. OtherAJ (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems appropriate. I don't have a source at hand for the scientology creation myth, though, so perhaps you could add it. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 06:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

>> All right. I will look for some commonly sourced sites on this information. Thanks. OtherAJ (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You may have some problems finding a RS, given how tightly Scientology keeps their creation myth a secret. Xenu may provide some sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A section has been added .. removed .. and added again , which I think is nothing to do with creation as it occurs way after creation. It should be binned imho. Abtract (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Many creation myths don't deal with the actual creation of the universe. However, they DO all deal with the origin of humanity (as we know it). Keep it. --King ♣ Talk 20:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't have an opinion one way or the other, but I was the one who added it back until it could be discussed. I put a tag on it but I'm not sure I used the right one... Cmiych (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am unclear as to whether the Scientology story deals with the origin of human beings, or only of these spirits that supposedly inhabit humans? Please clarify. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Creation Myth -everything had to start some where

Any debate or discussion needs to rely on facts to prove a statement or belief. On this subject of creation or any other there are always limiting factors. I ask you to ask your self, what is the limiting factor in your belief? What is a "limiting factor"? it is a the fact which proves your thought or belief cannot be true. We often make statements based on general excepted evidence yet these statements have conflicting factual points with other statements of our belief. An example would be that I can believe that it took millions of years to make the Grand Canyon and yet we have trees in various archaically layers that are supposed to be millions of years apart. This limits the generally published (in this case not totally excepted) statement that the grand canyon was formed over millions of years. Many people will try to ignore this issue but it is an insurmountable factual piece of data. By this limiting factor we know that the Grand canyon did not form over millions of years. I ask everyone to look at each and every belief and then determine if there is a limiting factor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.84.153.65 (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

We already have an article on the Geology of the Grand Canyon area, covering its formation over "millions of years" and there is no reason to rehash the issue here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is unconstructive. You admit you don't understand empirical geological facts, as it would also be one that the Grand Candyon did form over millions of years. If you want to promote your psuedoscientific views elsewhere, go to the specific pages. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Now how would trees be a limiting factor in this? It's not like trees only formed for a 6-day period however many years ago. Trees have been around for a long, long time. --King Öomie 14:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe he may be referring to polystrate fossils. Creationists believe (wrongly, as usual) that they form some sort of problem for orthodox geology. Regardless, it is off-topic for this article -- which is about the contents of creation myths, not whether they bear any relationship to scientific facts. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

First Paragraph

Deleted "mytho-religious" as redundant. Desoto10 (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a creation myth just as legitimate, if not more so, when compared to the other ones in the "modern" section, such as Raelianism or Scientology or the others. Does a myth necessarily have to have believers? Thousands if not millions of people know of the FSM and its creation myth, and some of the creation myths on this page are quite obscure and probably have little to no believers left, making them less relevant, IMHO. Since the entire idea of the FSM is to parody the Judeo-Christian creation myth, and the FSM is a creation myth itself, it is beyond me why my addition of a section on the FSM was removed. I honestly do not see why it would not belong in this article, because it is not as if any of the other myths are any more true than it is. They are just that: myths. It is perfectly relevant to the subject of this article, and what I put about it was all correct, to the best of my knowledge, mostly information from the Flying Spaghetti Monster Wikipedia article. And I am not even a follower of Pastafarianism, just one of the many people who has heard of it. This article seems incredibly long and documents a vast array of different creation myths, and yet I add just one more and it is removed. Instead of a pointless edit war, why not simply explain the reasoning behind removing the section I added? --69.205.228.89 (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

FSM's 'creation myth' is neither a particularly serious one (having been created as a parody of Intelligent design) nor a particularly prominent one (I rather doubt if its received any notice from anthropologists or experts in comparative religions). As such it would be WP:UNDUE to include them in this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you are right. I know next to nothing about Wikipedia policy other than trying to be NPOV and encyclopedic, and mostly just try to improve articles, but that seems like a legitimate reason not to include it in this article. The Flying Spaghetti Monster article on Wikipedia has quite a lot of information, so I guess if people want to know about it, they can just look at that article instead. Since I agree with you now, I guess this matter is settled. --69.205.228.89 (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I had previously deleted the Flying Spaghetti Monster section from this article as vandalism, but I see now that it was an addition with some serious thought behind it. I apologize. I still don't believe that it belongs with the other myths, because, as far as I can tell, no one has ever believed it. However, as a parody of a creation myth, a link to Flying Spaghetti Monster belongs in the "See also" section. Plazak (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No comment?

An IP editor has removed material without talk page comment. Material added by the same IP has been reverted but not that. Just sayin' TheresaWilson (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Last paragraph of Judaism and Christianity section

It was deleted and reverted, which is how it caught my eye. The preceeding paragraph references II Peter and discusses views of the early Christian church. The last paragraph begins with The Church was not, however, literalist, and Biblical commentators throughout the ages discussed the degree to which the accounts of Creation were to be taken literally or allegorically but then proceeds to reference Jewish theologians and scholars. Maimonides, Gersonides and Rabbi Dressler have nothing to do with the Church. I would say that the Jewish references should be pulled out of the Christian section and relocated, and that Christian references should be found to back up the assertion made in the lede of the last paragraph. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this a normal article or is it a 'list' article?

Should this article be renamed 'List of creation myths'? It is substantively a list of myths from various cultures, rather than a discussion of the general phenomenon.

On a related matter, because the article is mostly listing individual myths, it really needs (in the lead and/or in an 'Overview' section) a bit of (sourced) discussion on the general concept (and commonalities), etc. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It should definitely be renamed 'List of ways people groups (not specifically cultural groups) have described creation that is not necessarily based on scientific fact but cannot be proven false because they rely on religious belief systems some of which are still widespread as of November 2009 and therefore should not be termed myths, narratives, stories, accounts, traditions, or lores nor include specific scientific theories such as the big bang'

More seriously, despite any debate over 'myth' this article probably should be considered a list. Cmiych (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I too think this should be at List of creation myths, per WP:LISTNAME and the large list that dominates the body. (I was made aware of the discussion above this one by Gregkaye on my talk page.) --an odd name 22:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?

After an extensive (and many would consider overly long) discussion, there is no WP:CONSENSUS that there is a NPOV issue or that the current article title is inappropriate or inaccurate.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to apologise in advance for what I am about to say on the basis that I understand that I am not the first person to raise issue with the "creation myth" title applied to this article. Its just that I cannot see how this title reflects a neutral point of view and, as such, would like to propose the use of the title "account of creation". It seems to me that the conclusion that regards these "accounts of creation" as being representative of "creation myths" to may well be interpreted to be biased in its scepticism. Can anyone prove that, for instance, A'akuluujjusi or Zamba were not actually involved in creation? Arguments can obviously be raised to propose alternative explanations of existence and some of these arguments may well be interpreted to be very convincing and yet, as a sceptic I'd like it to be proposed that they are no more than that, arguments. It seems to be apparent that there are "accounts of creation" that relates to the creative activities of a wide range of "creators". There may well be strong arguments to say that these accounts are of a mythical nature and yet these arguments are, ultimately, inconclusive. It can be readily admitted that the creative contributions of A'akuluujjusi and Zamba cannot be proven and yet neither can they be disproven. Can anyone prove that, for instance, A'akuluujjusi did not rig the physical evidence so as to suggest alternative explanations of existence? Can anyone prove that, from an alternative 'instant', that a Cartesian 'demon' did not feed the individual with a particular view of reality that was suggest of this form of apparent evidence. René Descartes opted to argue against this view through reasonings that were dependent on the conception of the existence of God and yet it may be interpreted that a God of the type conceived in Cartesian philosophy might choose to validate any particular creation myth of 'his' choosing. Can anyone disprove the concept represented in the idea of the Cartesian demon without calling on a higher authority? If someone can then this action would, in my view, generate a greatly valued contribution to philosophical understandings of existence. The Wikipedia article on, 'Mythology' begins "Mythology is the study of myths and or of a body of myths". This definition, however, raises the question related to who it is that may decide whether a story has a mythical nature. What is the nature of a particular story? It may be argued that there are two fundamental interpretations that people may take. Either it is true or it is untrue. People who believe a story to be true will, by definition, have interpreted that there was truth in the story. People who don't believe a story to be true will have interpreted the story to be untrue and may, classically, have regarded the story to possess a mythical nature. It may be argued that different people may come to differing opinions with regard to the nature of any particular story and it may even be agued that, within conceptions of freedom of thought, their liberty to do so should be protected. Mythologists are at liberty to adopt their own interpretations with regard to the veracity of various stories and as such an outsiders view of mythology might regard it to be "the study of stories that are (widely/commonly/sometimes/on occasion/typically/often*) interpreted to be myths". * choose description to fit In an adult world it may be regarded that each individual should be empowered to come to their own conclusions with regard to the veracity of any particular story and this light, and as someone who experiences no particular belief with the regard to the existence of any particular conception of any form of creative agency, the assertion of the mythical nature of certain stories isn't regarded to be welcome. Based on the argument that a level playing field for debate should always be preserved and according to the view that a "neutral point of view" should always be adopted I propose that a title along the lines of "account of creation" be used in connection to this article. Gregkaye (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC) myth … 1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon[1] As far as I can tell, all the 'Creation myths' in this article fall under this definition. Calling them 'accounts' would appear to violate WP:GEVAL by giving them equal validity to the results of historical and scientific research. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Your (very long) argument gives me the impression that you haven't actually read through WP:NPOV. If that is true, you really should give it a read. You shouldn't get too far into it before you realise the 'neutral' word in the title of the policy is coupled to reliable sources, not to any particular editors or groups feelings on the matter. Ben (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC) The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition continues: … b : parable, allegory  2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism — Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion  3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence  4 : the whole body of myths [2] As far as I am able to reason, all the 'creation stories' in the article in question are likely to be myths - by any definition. The only trouble is, and its not for want of trying, I can't prove it. account • noun 1 a description of an event or experience. 2 a record of financial expenditure and receipts. 3 a service through a bank or similar organization by which funds are held on behalf of a client or goods or services are supplied on credit. 4 importance: money was of no account to her. [3] I personally see no problem with the use of this word on the basis that an 'account' can be either interpreted to true or false. Who trusts an accountant? (edit: O.K. the word is suggestive of the existence of source material which may be taken to represent a lack of neutrality). story • noun (pl. stories) 1 an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment. 2 an account of past events, experiences, etc. 3 an item of news. 4 a storyline. 5 informal a lie. — ORIGIN Old French estorie, from Latin historia ‘history’. [4] Despite its history this word has a less respectful (but remarkably similar) meaning as that presented by 'account' and yet is ready to be used. The word 'myth' is defined by falacy and is far from neutral. Perhaps 'accounts of creation' can be proven to be myths. Perhaps they may be proven to be legends and, if so, fine. In the meantime I consider that answers to the questions that I have raised may present valued contributions to the content of this discussion page. Gregkaye (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC) My advice above still stands. Ben (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC) I did not include the 'continuation' because the first MW definition is both the main, and clearly the most relevant, definition of "myth". "Myth" already contains "story" in its definition, "a usually traditional story…". Can you demonstrate that many (any?) of these 'stories' aren't traditional? "Myth" is the more precise term, and thus should be used. "Account" generally has an undertone of greater verifiability than "myth" or "story", either as a first person account of events witnessed, or as the account reconstructed as the result of research. As none of these 'traditional stories' are in any way verifiable (other than their existence within the appropriate religious or cultural tradition), I would suggest that "myth" (which is explicitly only "ostensibly historical") is far more appropriate. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)   I propose that the use of the word 'myth' in the use in its use in the title of this article, to canibalise the common phrase, be busted. The use of this word is not neutral and perhaps a title such as "Creation story (Religion)" may be used. Alternatively it may be argued that a title such as "Creation story (Religion-Mythology)" might be used and yet it may be interpreted that the stories are typically of religion and interpreted within mythological studies. The word 'myth' [5] [6] [7] can clearly be taken to presents its hearer with a concept of an untrue story. The words 'account' and 'story' don't do this. The description of a "true account or story" can be clearly taken to describe an account or story that is claimed to be true. The description of an "untrue account or story" can be clearly taken to describe an account or story that is claimed to be untrue. This happens for the simple reason that these words both possess a notable degree of neutrality. In contrast a description of a "true myth" can clearly be taken to describe a story that is certainly untrue. However, a description of an "untrue myth" can be taken to describe something that is not a myth. A simple mathematical equation can be taken to explain what's going on: +1 ✕ -1  =  -1. As such a description "untrue myth" may be take to be descriptive "non-fiction" and this can happen due to the clear definition of a myth as fiction. No I can't demonstrate (prove) that any of the 'traditional stories' (as they have been perhaps fairly described) are not traditional. Moreover I would find it difficult to imagine that any orally recounted story of significant age would not have been affected by the influences of a transmitting society. At the other extreme I cannot provide any conclusive proof that these stories have or haven't been based on a supposed true account of creation. The particular difficulty in the current case is that the stories involved tend to call on supernatural agencies that may or may not include 'God'. This raises the question how might 'God' have done it. Indeed, it may be imagined that an entity with divine ability could do whatever he wanted and yet this statement does not cover the potential freedom. It could also be considered that she could have done whatever she liked as well. I would still tend to argue that there may be limits to divine freedom[8] but you get the point. At the moment the article begins: A creation myth or cosmogonic myth is a supernatural story or explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe (cosmogony),[1] often as a deliberate act by one or more deities. Perhaps the article could begin: A creation story is an explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe (cosmogony),[1] often through the deliberate action by one or more deities. {and then say something like:} These stories are widely regarded to be mythical in nature. Citations related to significant claims should, surely, always be needed. I hope that this may conclude matters relating to the current issue but, if not, can anyone actually disprove the various creative claims related to the variously claimed creators of history (my divinism website contains a list)[9] and the previously mentioned questions? Gregkaye (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC) You're beating a dead horse here. This issue has been discussed discussed before in now-archived threads, and the overwhelming consensus has always been, as it is now, to keep the word "myth". Plazak (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Do not overstate your claimed consensus. There are strong arguments on both sides. We need to use common names in Wikipedia. The most common usage of myth is clearly a false fairytale: one accademic usage is broader. I could support a neutral title of "creation story" which does not judge the content. Grantmidnight (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC) (i) You have not substantiated your claim that "The most common usage of myth is clearly a false fairytale" -- MW clearly thinks otherwise. (ii) Even if its most common meaning is "a false fairytale" it should be noted that (a) a "fairytale" is a traditional story about the supernatural (and thus a synonym of the 'academic' definition of myth) & (b) that the majority of the people in the world are not of a specific religion or culture, and so disbelieve that religion or culture's specific creation myth (and often even many adherents of the culture or religion that spawned it do not take them literally). (iii) I would suggest that (ii-b) is most probably how "myth" developed its metaphorical/colloquial meaning, making it even less unreasonable to use it in its literal/formal sense. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Hrafn, this amounts to a religious debate. According to the rules, the onus is on you to unsubstantiate his claims. --King Öomie 15:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Does that mean that I can simply declare 'my religion says that your religion is wrong' (and what religion doesn't say that in some shape or form) and flip the onus back onto him? >:) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC) No, religion is a personal belief. Within reasonable limitations, we must allow other people to hold and to present their views, even if we disagree with them. Grantmidnight (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Demonstrably false- WP:GEVAL, WP:V, WP:PSEUDO. Wikipedia isn't here to reaffirm whatever garbage people already believe. --King Öomie 16:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC) I suppose at the end of the day, a "myth" (whichever the definition you choose) is something that 'other people believe', and that everybody has a knee-jerk dislike of finding themselves part of that 'other people'. However, Wikipedia is meant to be based upon what the experts say, not on knee-jerk dislikes. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC) I think that we should all remember that this discussion does not relate to a popularity contest of ideas but to the single issue of what is right. Neutrality has been presented as the central issue in the debate. I have also raised a number of issues that I would not like to be forgotten. (quick link to top of the section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Creation_myth#Neutral_point_of_view.3F) However, at this stage I think it may be wise to get things in a historical perspective. Scholars have always recognised the word myth as being derived from the Greek μῦθος (a tale; fiction ('myth')) [10] [11]. The Wikipedia article on Mythology speaks of Euhemerus (working late fourth century B.C.) as: interpreted myths as accounts of actual historical events,... However, I am guessing that he did not actually use the word 'myth'. The article continues: ... 19th-century theories framed myth as a failed or obsolete mode of thought ... I'm guessing again and this my guess is that this amounts to a view that may have been widely considered in the eighteen hundreds that: we, as good Christians, are right and, even though we respect that Aristotle chap, what everyone else believes is a right load of conveniently dismissable tosh. The sad thing is that anyone at any time could have stood up and said that we can't actually prove that the various events recounted in ancient stories did not actually happen. No one was able to effectively able to stand up for the rights of ancient beliefs to be regarded with neutrality and then it was suddenly to late. At some point someone, in effect, said, "I don't Adam and Eve it!" The biblical creation story became just as vulnerable to the wrongs of the myth interpretation as everything else. Well that's equality for you. Things are equal and yet they are not fair. Consider the story of young Z. Z is well behaved, goes to school without problems, is relatively friendly and happens to share the same religious beliefs as his parents. There's no way to know how it started but one day the the other kids found out about what Z believed. Ha, ha, Z believes such and such. What's wrong with that? Its a myth. And there's no denying it. There's little chance for debate. No proof is offered as to why the belief is wrong and yet even the God damn encyclopedia says its a myth. Gregkaye (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC) (all comments are of a non-biographical nature) Please don't confuse neutrality for validity. Also, Burden of proof. We make fun of Z because he ignores the evidence in front of his face, not because we can't prove a negative. --King Öomie 19:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Additionally, I would hope that anyone with a scholarly background sufficient to readily recall the origin of the word 'Myth' would also have the mental faculties to see that the term is quite apt. --King Öomie 19:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC) No Öomie I think that you will find that you make fun of Z because you are the kind of person who makes fun of people. Oh, and thanks for raising the burden of proof issue. And perhaps you can reread what I said about the definitions of 'account', story and myth. 90.193.209.169 (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Oppose a name change. As it is, the article neutrally presents ALL creation myths as MYTHS. I see absolutely no reason to raise their validity in such a blanket fashion, especially for religious sensibilities. And I think you'll find that I said "we". I don't appreciate your assumptions about my character. --King Öomie 21:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC) I don't want to detract from the ethical issues that are raised by the blanket description of every "supernatural story or explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe" as being a myth and yet I still want raise this reminder of the burden of proof issue recently raised. I'd also recomend that people might refrain from the use of first person descriptions in their writing if perhaps they don't mean it. 90.193.209.169 (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC) The MW definition clearly meets any "burden of proof issue" for the "blanket description". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC) How? I am genuinely interested in the line of reasoning that has been applied in relation to the "blanket description". Gregkaye (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC) (still centrally interested in the neutrality and related issues) Oppose name change. These stories have one thing in common, they are not based on scientific fact, theory or reasoning. Many of them were the stumbling attempts of early societies, without our current level of scientific knowledge, to explain how we came to be here, they may have some 'higher' spiritual meaning for certain groups of people, they may be useful allegories even today, but they are still myths. In my Collins English Dictionary a myth is "a story about superhuman beings of an earlier age, usually of how natural phenomena, social customs etc came into existence" ... an excellent description of all that is in this article. Note that nowhere in this definition is the word "untrue". Abtract (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia is a wonderful thing. It offers an unrivaled range of digital information to absolutely anyone who has an appropriate web connection. This includes people with non-academic backgrounds. This page begins with the statement: "The term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story;" and yet this is immediately qualified with the statement: "however, the academic use of the term generally does not refer to truth or falsity. That is what people who seriously write on the subject think, ..." But what about people when they are not seriously writing on the subject? How do they use the word? http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22the+myth+of%22 http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22its+a+myth%22 An initial Mirriam Webster dictionary definition has been quoted for the word and yet it may be noted that at least three of the five following definitions are clear in their presentation of variations of the "untrue story" definition.[12] I also quoted Google[13] Oxford[14] and Wiktionary[15] and, in an open access site, I commend these definitions for future presentation simply due to the absence of words like ostensibly. One thing is clear, The word myth has a range of meanings and yet, given an awareness of the full range of these meanings, the one conclusion can be reached. It's not neutral. The use use of this word makes a judgement in regard to the contents of the page before the typical reader will have got passed the title. Perhaps various of the editors of this page may interpret the word to be neutral enough so as to warrent its use and yet it surely won't surprise you when people disagree. Gregkaye (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC) No Greg, it is not "clear". The word myth has a well-defined primary and formal meaning, which is perfectly congruent with its usage here. Further, it has not been demonstrated that any of its lesser meanings conflict greatly with this usage. The usage is an accurate description of the traditional stories covered by this article. That such stories have lost their power in modern culture, and have become a metaphor with some negative connotations (and some positive as well -- 'mythic' is generally used positively) does not invalidate the primary and original meaning of the word. Nazi does not stop meaning a Germanic racist fascist, just because it is used as a metaphor in soup nazis, feminazis, etc, etc. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Greg, nobody is denying that there is a colloquial definition of the term, and so your Google searches with colloquial phrasings are of no use to us. As Hrafn clearly points out, a colloquial definition is not a problem. In the case of 'myth', it's hardly a unique situation either: consider for instance the term theory vis-a-vis colloquial and academic definitions, and yet nobody bats an eyelid at general relativity being described (twice!) as a theory in the first line of that featured article. Since you've clearly not bothered to read and understand WP:NPOV, I'm not sure there is any point in giving you anything else to read, but here you go anyway: Encyclopedia Britannica has its own creation myth article found here. Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible (ISBN 978-0192116918) entry for 'myth' states that It ... covers those stories or narratives which describe the actions of the other-worldly in terms of this world, in both OT and NT. In Gen. the Creation and the Fall are myths ... In Oxford University Press' The Illustrated Guide to the Bible (ISBN 9780195214628), a work clearly intended for a general audience: It is generally recognized today that myths and mythological concepts figure prominently in the Bible. On Marcus Borg's website here, he tells us that David Strauss's claim that many of the gospel narratives are mythical in character, and that "myth" is not simply to be equated with "falsehood" — have become part of mainstream scholarship. The reliability of these two sources can be gauged from their respective Wikipedia entries (and so I've linked their names for you). Of course, there are many more reliable sources available. Another link for you you to consider before you continue: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Cheers, Ben (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Oppose name change. "Myth" is the proper term for this. We shouldn't dump a perfectly fitting term used in other encyclopedias and scholarly works just because of secondary connotations. Let's end this, please? Auntie E. 16:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Hrafn, you seem to have described the definitions of myth following its first entry in the MW dictionary as being lesser and I am wondering in what sense this was meant: in sequence in the dictionary; in academic opinion or in terms of the words actual usage in the English language. Ben, I am pleased that nobody is denying that there is a colloquial definition of the term. Its just that I don't agree that this definition, in the context of an open access project, should regarded to be lesser. I also understand any potential frustrations with my sticking with this issue and will admit to a refusal to except the 'point' made in several of the comments. I have, however, not stuck to one argument and have presented a number of views that are not represented on this discussion page so I would view the contributions to have been valid. Auntie E, the problem is that the "secondary connotations" of the word, as you describe them, result in that it is not perfectly fitting. The word myth presents a meaning of untruth while other possible terms do not do this. In my view a judgement is expressed in the use of this term and I find the notion pleasantly ironic that mythologists, of all people, can be interpreted to have adopted the role of playing God. The stories of creation belong to the groups of people that came up with those stories. It may be argued that their views may be consulted with regard to the ways in which their stories are being portrayed. I don't personally have anything new to currently add to this argument. All the same, any responses to the questions that I have raised will still be welcome here or on my talk page if preferred. Gregkaye (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC) OK, as Gregkaye has nothing more to add, I suggest we end this discussion now, with a decision not to change the title, and move on to more productive things. Abtract (talk) 09:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC) I think archiving this thread will lead to productivity elsewhere ;) Ben (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Not yet. This is a topic that has two strong views, both with some validity. A year ago, this had some resolution by a statement in the lead section about which definition of "myth" was used in this article. That helped a lot. Let's reconsider a similar statement that says we are using an academic definition that does not suggest truth nor fable. If we burry this thread, it certainly will resurface. Grantmidnight (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC) And what would you add which isn't already specified in the intro?--Ramdrake (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC) The problem is that one group of editors "knows" what a myth is and another group "knows" it to be something else. The solution is to clearly state what the meaning is in this article: This should be in the lead section. I am open to several options. This one is based on words to avoid. The term “myth” in this article is used to denote 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 used or originated the myth. Comments? Grantmidnight (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Hi Grantmidnight. That intro seems fine -- as long as you can find specific sources for it (or for the various parts of it). I have seen far too many cases of editors (in an effort to quell disputes such as this one) crafting very intelligent, well-intended, and tactfully worded definitions of "myth" that have the unfortunate drawback of having no actual citations whatsoever. If you want a great resource for actual sourced definitions, check out the Mythology article. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Also, check out Religion and mythology#Definitions. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC) "All myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true." True in what sense? Railway timetables are true (one hopes). My son's account of how he did his homework (one page when the teacher asked for five) is true, in a sense. Emperor Hirohito's report on the progress of the war against America ("events have unfolded not entirely to Japan's advantage") was completely true but less than complete, and might fairly be described as myth. My only advice is: Stay away from Webster-Miriam when looking for a definition of "myth." Go to scholarly sources instead. PiCo (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC) In my ‘opinion’ the use of the word “myth” within a wide range of contexts throughout the historic use of the word has been conducted in an abusive way. Having presented this opinion (which has been rightly presented as an opinion) perhaps I can move on to present some ‘facts’ that are considered to add substance to my interpretation of the history of the abusive use of myth related terminologies: In 1755 Samuel Johnson published “A Dictionary of the English Language”. It was quite a dictionary. It really has the most beautiful typography considering its date. But here's a curious thing. While the "SJ" dictionary presented definitions of many terms related to the topic of myths, it didn’t directly present a definition for the word “myth” itself. Perhaps the reason for this is that the dictionarys “myth” related terminologies tended to make reference to fables instead. I'll start with a presentation of the "SJ" definition of FA´BLE so as to prepare the ground for a contextualised understanding of the definitions of MY´THICAL/MY´THICK, MYTHO´GRAPHER, MYTHOLO´GICAL/MYTHOLO´GICK, MYTHOLO´GICALLY, MYTHO´GICIST, TO MYTHO´LOGIZE and MYTHO´LOGY. This presentation may lack the typographic flare of this remarkable text but is faithful to the content. FA´BLE. n. s. [fable, Fr. fabula, Lat.] 1.  A feigned story intended to enforce some moral precepts. Jotham’s fable of the trees is the oldest extant, and as beautiful as any made since. Addis. Spect. VOL.II 2.  A fiction in general. Triptolemus, so sung the nine, Strew’d plenty from his cart divine ; But, spite of all those fable makers, he never sow’d on Almaign acres.   Dryden Palladius coming to die somewhere in the north part of Britain, may seem to give some kind of countenance to those fables that make him to have lived many years among the Scots.   Lloyd. 3. A vicious or foolish fiction. But refuse profane and old wives’ fables.   1 Tim. iv. 7. 4. the series or contexture of events which constitute a poem epick or dramatick. The moral is the first business of the poet : this being formed, he contrives such a design or fable as may be most suitable to the moral.   Dryden. Dufresnoy. The first thing to be considered in an epick poem is the fable, which is perfect or imperfect, according as the action, which it relates, is more or so less   Addis. Spect. 5. A lie ; a vicious falsehood. This sense is merely familiar. It would look like a fable to report that this gentleman gives away a great fortune by secret methods.   Addison. ... MY´THICAL.* MY´THICK. } adj. [μυθικος, Greek.] Fabulous. The account we have of them so far from being mythick or unintelligible, is most plainly written for our admonitions.   Shuckford on the Creation. (1753) Spect. MYTHO´GRAPHER.* n. s. [μυθος, fable, and γράφος to write, Gr.] A writer of fables. The statues of Mars and Venus I imagined had been copied from Fulgentius, Boccacio’s favourite mythographer.   Warton, Hist. E. P. add. ii. sign. e. 3. MYTHOLO´GICAL.† MYTHOLO´GICK. } Adj. [from mytho- logy.] relating to the explication of a fabulous history. The original of the conceit was probably hieroglyphical, which after became mythological and by tradition stole into a total verity, which was but partially true in its convert sense and morality.   Brown, Vulg. Err. A relation, which her masters of the mythologick prosopopeia expressed, we may suppose, by giving them in marriage to each other. Coventry, Phil. to Hyd. Conv. 3. MYTHOLO´GICALLY.† adv. [from mythological.] In a manner suitable to the system of fables. The relating mythologically physical or moral truths concerning the origin and nature of things, was not perhaps, as modern writers too hastily imagine, the customary practice of Moses’ age, but rather began after his times.   Shuckford on the Creat. Pref. p. vii. MYTHO´GICIST.† n. s. [from mythology.] A relater or expositor of the ancient fables of the heathens. The grammarians and mythologists seem to be altogether unacquainted with his writings.   Creech. It was celebrated problem among the ancient mythologists, What was the strongest thing, what the wisest, and what the greatest ?   Norris, Miscel. TO MYTHO´LOGIZE.† v. n.  [from mythology; mythologiser. French. Cotgrave.] To relate of explain the fabulous history of the heathens. He mythologises upon that fiction.   Fotherby, Atheom. (1622,) p.320. They mythologised that five gods were now born, Osiris, Orus, Typho, Isis, and Nephte.   Shuckford on the Creat. Pref. p. x. MYTHO´LOGY. n. s.   [μύθος and λόγος ; mythologie, French]   System of fables explication of the fabulous history of the gods of the heathen world. The modesty of mythology deserves to be comended : the scenes there are laid at a distance ; it is once upon a time, in the days of yore, and in the land of Utopia.   Bentley.   Samuel Johnson presented clear definitions of these words. He did not mince them. He did not present a definition of the word “myth” in a direct way and yet he can still be interpreted to have presented is meaning in a quite fabulous way. It had a phenomenal lack of neutrality. It was dismissive of people’s beliefs and its use, as far as I am concerned, was abusive. It still is.   Here's another thought. If the MW dictionary is considered unscholarly, then perhaps this will do. The most recent edition of the greatly influential Oxford English Dictionary published 1969, updated 1991 and most recently reprinted in 2001 has this to say: myth ... 1. a. A purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions, or events, and embodying some popular idea concerning natural or historical phenomena. ... b. in generalized use. Also, an untrue or popular tale, a rumour (colloq.). ... 2. A fictitious or imaginary person or object. ...   The primary definition of the word “myth” presented in this most highly esteemed of dictionaries is of: “A purely fictitious narrative”. It’s not presented as a lesser definition of the word. The topic of the historic use of the word “myth” may be of great interest and this is content that I expect it might contain. The actual followers of a religious tradition who, it may be argued should have the right of description of their stories, may have considered their stories as being accounts of actual events and would be unlikely to describe them to myths. At the other extreme other people who have not had any strong belief in the factual content of the stories will have been most likely to dismiss the stories as “myths”. The word “myth” is not neutral and I suspect that its meaning has been primarily developed by people who have lacked neutrality.   Repeated and pointed mention has been made within this discussion of the WP:NPOV neutrality principle. I thought this might stop but, since it hasn’t, perhaps we can discuss the content. Bias Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired. A simple formulation Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. ... ... Article naming ... A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name. ... If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. ... ... Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing. ... Impartial tone ... A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view.   These principles have not been fairly applied. The current “Creation myth” article title demonstrates clear and present (as well as historically rooted) indications of fallacy which will be received by most readers before they will have begun to absorb the content. Gregkaye (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Courtesy Break So, is this a draft of a BOOK you're writing on this subject? It's been established before that posting solely with walls of text makes you very difficult to respond to, and is typically disruptive. --King Öomie 13:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC) No, King Öomie the dictionary texts were put together yesterday for the direct purpose to present them in this page. I also have in mind to use them on a website on themes related to the topic of Freedom of thought. I have enough to do and a different book to finish without thinking about any publication on this subject but thank you for the question. My last posting was comprised of two sets of dictionary definitions, some quotations from the oft mentioned WP:NPOV principle and a few extra comments. What's difficult to respond to? Gregkaye (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC) What I've seen from you in general is an idealistic appeal to a society (rather, a species) that does not exist. You will have significant trouble finding people that share your view that every religious (or pseudo-religious, or completely invented) belief system is just as reasonable as the next, AND that these beliefs truly are "reasonable". (You've sold me on the first one- the feasibility across the board is zero.) I see absolutely no point in pursuing notions of thought-crimes and persecution thereof, or any other hyperbolic sentiment. Let's just drop all that, shall we? Stop trying to convince me on a philosophical level, because you won't. What would you have us replace "Myth" WITH? Why is it more appropriate, according to the lexicographic consensus on the meaning of the words? Leaving ENTIRELY aside the psychological effect on the believers, which truly, literally does not matter. And let's aim for 5 sentences or less. --King Öomie 15:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC) I really don't even want to get involved in this, because I tend to believe that "myth" is appropriately used in the title. BUT, I could suggest "Creation Lore" if anyone feels like discussing it. Cmiych (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC) That's a reasonable suggestion, but it seems 'off' to me to use the term Lore to refer to more than one school of thought, especially since they're almost all mutually exclusive. Then again, I'm not a lexicographer. --King Öomie 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC) I would further suggest "creation lores" but I'm not sure "lores" is the correct form or use of the plural. But you're right, lore does seem to refer to the body of knowledge collectively, which may or may not be appropriate here. "Creation doctrines" might work as well. Again, I'm not passionately against "myth," but if it's going to be discussed again due to the connotations, I might as well throw out some options rather than simply insert myself into a slugfest. Cmiych (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC) "Lore", unlike "myth", more commonly refers to 'knowledge' rather than to a 'narrative'. Traditional medicine would be better described as 'lore' than a 'creation myth' would. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Creation traditions? "Beliefs or customs taught by one generation to the next, often orally. For example, we can speak of the tradition of sending birth announcements." "A set of customs or practices. For example, we can speak of Christmas traditions." "A broad religious movement made up of religious denominations or church bodies that have a common history, customs, culture, and, to some extent, body of teachings. For example, one can speak of Islam's Sufi tradition or Christianity's Lutheran tradition." Just my 2¢ TheresaWilson (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC) I just want to say that it is one thing to simply pick up a thesaurus and suggest alternatives, but an entirely different thing to offer a sound argument for why change is necessary and then for why one term is better than another. As far as I see it, I don't think a sound argument for change can co-exist with Wikipedia's policies: so long as reliable sources overwhelmingly use this terminology, it is not up to you, me or anyone else to start proscribing new terminology on Wikipedia (of all places). Not to discourage anyone though, feel free to get out there and change the reliable sources (as opposed to Wikipedia) if you want to right this great wrong; It's my understanding that Encyclopedia Britannica is now accepting 'updates' to their articles (subject to some form of scrutiny), so that might be a nice easy start for you. In the mean time though I don't want to sit here and think of reasons why not to use your pet terms for as long as you care to suggest them. Ben (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Thank you for the constructive sarcasm. Cmiych (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC) I'm really sorry for being so rude. I think I took it too far this time, so no justifications or anything, just a genuine apology. Ben (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC) 'Tradition' generally has the connotation that it is still being "taught", which is not true for many of these myths. It is even questionable whether it is a 'belief' as many Christians don't believe the literal truth of Genesis, and I would suspect the same is true of other creation myths. If an alternative is truly needed for 'myth' (which I dispute), then I would suggest that the best (if imperfect) alternative is 'narratives'. "Myths" 'nails it', "narratives" doesn't nail it, but at least doesn't seem clearly wrong. "Lores" and "traditions" are clear mis-fits. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC) I agree with you, Hrafn, I was just trying to pour some oil on troubled waters. TheresaWilson (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Can we start a pool (har har) on who's going to drop a match into it first? --King Öomie 15:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC) "Myths" in my opinion (as stated above) does 'nail it' based on its definition. The issue for those questioning if there is any Wikipedia policy to support a change, is that "myth" could be considered weaselly based on its connotations. A similar situation often occurs with the word "manipulate" (I will elaborate if needed, but I feel it's relatively self explanatory). Cmiych (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Whether it's "weaselly" or not is a matter of context. Whilst I would likewise consider "manipulate" to be loaded in many contexts, I wouldn't in articles such as physiotherapy and industrial robots. Likewise, it should be clear from the context that 'myth' is being used here in its original, formal meaning (which is directly applicable to the subject matter), even if it might be used in an informal, and more loaded, context elsewhere (e.g. in Urban legends). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Titles, by their very nature, may be encountered within contexts that may be devoid of any form of expanation related to understandings of the meaning of the title. Titles, on the other hand, always always provide a context for a context that follows. When a title is used in relation to an article whose content may be interpreted in different ways, a neutral title needs to be applied. In the current case the words "story" or perhaps "account" may provide a simple introduction to the "creation stories" / "accounts of creation" that are mentioned within the article. Gregkaye (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC) I dispute the notion that the current title is biased in any way. --King Öomie 14:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Agreed, it isn't in the slightest. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC) King Oomie, would you consider all the accounts in this article to be myths in the non-academic sense of the word? Cmiych (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC) The term isn't usually used (colloquially) for things that people still believe, but on the whole, yes, the classification fits perfectly. --King Öomie 16:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Actually, let me be more clear. The term isn't used by people to refer to things that THEY believe, which again, is the root of this entire discussion. --King Öomie 16:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC) That being the case, it does not surprise me that those who do not hold to any of the beliefs listed here insist on maintaining the term myth as it is 100% accurate connotations included, while those who might hold any of the beliefs are offended and wish it to be changed to something more "neutral". Just as a title should not give validity to a persons beliefs, it should also not present them as inherently false (especially when some of them are widely regarded to be true within certain groups). The comments discounting any individuals beliefs have not helped to reach consensus here. We should acknowledge that there is disagreement over whether the accuracy of the academic meaning of the word trumps the connotations and discuss the merits of such an argument without regard for one's own beliefs about the content of this article. In the process, we should attempt to find an equally accurate term that lacks the connotations altogether to hopefully avoid the continued rehashing of this issue. Just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmiych (talk • contribs) 16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Kind of like how the Chemtrail people can get offended at it being labeled a conspiracy theory, because of its pejorative connotation? Or how Intelligent Design supporters rail against the term Pseudoscience? Just like in those situations, I respectfully decline the drive to change accepted wording to suit interested parties. --King Öomie 17:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid has a section relating to "myth" where it points out that context should reinforce that the term is not to be read informally. I'm not sure that a title has the ability to do that. It also read: "Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition [...] Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of an outsider looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral." Based on these guidelines, I do not think that this situation is comparable to the ones you mentioned. This is not about calling a specific creation story a myth based on a reliable source, but rather collectively calling multiple beliefs a term that cannot be clarified within the title yet has strong informal connotations that may not present a neutral view of the subject matter. The issue, though discussed numerous times before, should not be glossed over. Sorry for the winded response. Cmiych (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC) I think you are misreading that section. It is strongly depreciating the use of "myth" in its informal sense, but emphatically supporting its use in its formal sense: "Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception." This fully supports those of us here who have been arguing that it is its formal, not its informal, sense that should determine its use. Also on "context should reinforce…", it is less restrictive than your interpretation would suggest. What it in fact states is that "When using myth in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use the utmost care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally…" This cannot be taken as suggesting that it should not be used, in its formal sense, in an article title. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC) If I am misreading it I apologize. I was simply trying to point out that even wikipedia policy acknowledges that the term can be ambiguous to the point that it suggests certain measures to prevent it from being misinterpreted. I would again like to point out that I do not support a change at this point, but such an issue should not be blown off as a bunch of idiots getting their feelings hurt. If there is a better option it most definitely should be used to avoid confusion as supported by "Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition [...] Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of an outsider looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral.". Cmiych (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC) I don't think this is 'ambiguity' so much as stating that it is correct to use the word in its formal meaning and generally incorrect (with a very few specific exceptions) to use it in its informal sense. This is very similar to its treatment of 'theory' (formal 'scientific theory' acceptable, informal 'hypothesis' or similar not acceptable) -- which does not prevent (or even seek to prevent) the existence of the article Theory of relativity. WP:WTA is unequivocal in its opinion: use 'myth' in its formal sense, be as clear as possible that you're using it in the formal sense, and you have no problems. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC) The word formal[[16]] is defined as: 1 done in accordance with rules of convention or etiquette; (but no mention is made as to whose rules of convention or etiquette should be applied) 2 officially recognized: a formal complaint. (with that, when official judgements are made, they had better be fair) 3 of or concerned with outward form rather than content. (words, quite obviously, form impressions due to the forms which they are variously perceived to have) 4. (of language) characterized by the use of studied grammatical structure and conservative vocabulary. (It can be of interest to note the use of language. As far as I understand it, conservation of language relates to the rejection of foreign words. I don't know whether conservation of language may also relate to the rejection of foreign meanings or whether this is a related issue. Never-the-less, it may be of as much interest to note the ways in which the meanings of words have been changed as it is to note who has changed them). 5 (especially of a garden) arranged in a precise or symmetrical manner. (Not necessarily of words and yet it may be considered that understandings of the word myth have branched out over time). Perhaps we can remind ourselves of the initial definition of the word myth supplied by the Oxford OED: 1. a. A purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions, or events, and embodying some popular idea concerning natural or historical phenomena. It's a definition that provides a fundamental understanding of an initial definition of the word and here's how it works. People who believe in the veracity of a story (such as a creation story) don't use the word myth in the context of the story. Outsiders to such views who disbelieve in the veracity of such a story may describe the story to be a myth. A confusion may then occur. People who are uninformed of the fundamental meaning of the word and who see it to have been applied to a story that cannot be proven to be false think, somehow, that the word has changed its meaning and fall into this mistake. This situation leaves us with two options. We can either use the word myth that enables a retention of clarity in regard to this aspect of the English language or we can allow the continued use of a non neutral term, allow understandings of the word myth to range wide and put up with the resulting 'ambiguity'. Gregkaye (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Just to nitpick again, that phrase "Cannot be proven to be false" is entirely logically invalid, and a little insulting to my intelligence. It was, in fact, the reason I linked to Burden of Proof above. --King Öomie 15:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Actually, it can be proven that all-but-one of these stories are false -- via the argument from inconsistent revelations. Further, unless one of these stories isn't contradicted by the scientific evidence then all of them are "proven to be false". It would be nice if we could write 'Everybody agrees that all but one of these stories is a "a false fairytale", but cannot agree on which one is true -- apart from the scientists who believe that they're all "a false fairytales"' (to use Grantmidnight's turn of phrase) -- but somehow I doubt if we'd get that one past WP:NOR. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC) You would just have to cite a reliable source that says it. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC) But what if one of the religion's prophets announced that the reliable source given had been possessed by the devil at the time he wrote it? Surely you can't prove that isn't true. We must act as though it might be, because some people believe it! --King Öomie 16:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC) O'course -- everybody knows that reliable sources (scientific journals, Biblical scholarship, etc, etc) are the work of the Devil. Why would you expect that this RS would be otherwise. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Bottom line: The term myth is formally accurate. If there's not an equally accurate term that lacks the connotations, then there's no sense in even having this discussion. What would you suggest Gregkaye? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmiych (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Courtesy Break II Compromise? How about adding a Wiktionary link as clarification for Wikipedia users who might misunderstand this word? Keahapana (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC) I like that selection suggestion very much, actually. --King Öomie 20:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC) The problem is that we all think we know what "myth" means. The answer is to clarify what it means in this article. There are many good dictionary definitions. Here in Wikipedia, we have it spelled out for us in words to avoid. 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 used or originated the myth. If you do not like it, change it there. We need to include the definition of myth we are using in the article. Grantmidnight (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC) I disagree, in the sense that I don't think we need to include the definition of 'theory' we're using in scientific articles or the definition of 'number' we're using in mathematical articles. Including definitions of terms like this is to invite endless argument over the definition chosen - I have no doubt this is one of the major reasons we have entire articles discussing each of 'myth', 'theory' and 'number' as opposed to just piping people to wiktionary. So basically, I don't think it's this article's job to try and summarise mythology into a sentence or two. In fact I think it's impossible. Instead, I think we should just offer a wikilink to mythology and let that article do the explaining. After all, isn't that the point of the wiki software? Ben (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC) I don't think we should be defining 'myth' in isolation, but the article should certainly state what 'creation myth' means, and (per WP:WTA) should do so in a way that makes very clear that we're using 'myth' in its formal sense. I'd be tending toward something along the lines of 'A creation myth is a traditional story told by a culture or religion as the supernatural explanation for the existence of the universe and its contents.' The 'Modern' section may prove to be a bit problematic for this definition, and may require 'generally' to be inserted in front of 'traditional' & 'supernatural'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Hello. I just wanted to pop in to remind everyone of the importance of citations. I think it's great that you guys are hammering out a definition of "myth" for this article. But the fact that the definition is being tailored specifically for the contents of this article does not remove the need for citations. For each and every distinct claim being made within a Wikipedia article, a citation must be provided. I have seen far too many cases of editors (in an effort to quell disputes such as this one) crafting very intelligent, well-intended, and tactfully worded definitions of "myth" that have the unfortunate drawback of having no actual citations whatsoever. If you want a great resource for actual sourced definitions, check out the Religion and mythology and Mythology articles. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Taking Phatius McBluff's comment on board, how about the following: A creation myth is the narrative projection of a culture group's sense of its sacred past which describes the original ordering of the universe and the group's relationship to the powers of the universe. They use symbolic narrative to explain the beginning where the culture at one point lacked the information to give a scientific explanation. They also provide a metaphoric 'ultimate reality' conveying a culture's sense of its particular identity that transcends science.<ref>Leeming, David (1995). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195102754 page=vii. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Missing pipe in: |isbn= (help)</ref> This may be too close a paraphrase, and may need its language simplified, but provides a good basis for working up a sourced lead. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC) After glancing at the relevant source, I suggest the following paraphrase of Hrafn's definition, which could be used in the article's lead: A creation myth is a story that a culture uses to describe the original ordering of the universe. Like other myths, a creation myth expresses a culture's sense of its sacred past, its identity, and its relationship to the universe. In many cases, a creation myth acts as a symbolic model for a society's worldview and way of life.<ref>Leeming, David (1995). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195102754 page=vii. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Missing pipe in: |isbn= (help)</ref> Note that only the first sentence is actually a definition of the term "creation myth". The rest of the passage is a series of statements about creation myths, e.g., that they express their cultures' self-identities. I suggest avoiding the word "science" in the lead; to mention science in the lead is to ask for controversy. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Can I suggest we stick with the word 'group' used in Hrafn's version? Phatius' version might suggest a one-to-one correspondence between culture's and creation myths. Cheers, Ben (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Oops, I just re-read Hrafn's version and I missed the word culture is used in his too. I'm still a bit worried about using the word on its own though. Ben (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC) My wording uses the more precise 'culture grouping' in the first usage, but thereafter uses 'culture' to cut down on verbosity. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC) I see no reason to omit science as (i) the source makes prominent mention of comparison to it & (ii) the relationship between creation myths and scientific explanations is an important one (we wouldn't have a Creation-evolution controversy if there wasn't). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Cmiych asked a question that was preceded by the statement: The term myth is formally accurate. Me: Are you referring here to the OED definition of myth or to something else? Cmiych continued: If there's not an equally accurate term that lacks the connotations, then there's no sense in even having this discussion. What would you suggest Gregkaye? — I suggest that various editors admit to mentioned "connotations" and they admit that the term myth cannot be neutrally used in the context of an open access encyclopedia. I also suggest that an immediate change be made to the way in which this talk page is introduced. The page currently begins: Important notice: The article title adheres to the Neutral Point of View policy ... This is not true. The article title does not adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy and I suggest that any claim to the contrary be dropped. I suggest, if there are editors who propose to continue to use the work myth in connection with article, that they do so according to reasoned argument and not in reference to any unjustified claim to neutrality. I suggest that specialist dictionaries be used with caution. They tend to provide definitions of words in the ways in which they are understood by specialist groups. I finally suggest that one of the words: "story", "account" or "narrative" be used in connection to the main article. The article currently begins: "A creation myth or cosmogonic myth is a supernatural story..." (In effect the word "myth" is used three times prior to the explanation "is a supernatural story"). The Oxford, A Dictionary of Creation Myths states: A creation myth is the narrative projection... and also: A creation myth is a story... My suggestion is simple. I suggest that the word "story" be used in conjunction to this article. But what kind of story is it? As a convenience we find that a clear decription is neatly provided in the title. It's a creation story. Its the kind of story that some people believe in and other people don't. It is described to be a creation story which says it all. Its very neat and the further convenience is then found that, there is no need to begin the article with an otherwise needed and unneccessarily complicated rational that might attempt to justify the use of such a word as myth. A level playing field would have been smoothly accessed and within this context the content information of the article might then be fairly presented. I have answered all the questions with which I have been presented. It would be appreciated if my various questions might also be tackled. Gregkaye (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC) "Story" is not even close to "equally accurate", as it loses "myth"'s aspects of "sacred past" and cultural identity. A creation myth is not just another story. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC) While I still dispute the use of the word myth in the current context, I cannot dispute the content of the last statement. "A creation myth is not just another story". Its a "creation story". Moreover its a "creation story" that that has a 'sacred past' but, more than that, in the eyes of many believers, they may additionally be regarded to have a 'sacred present' and it was for these reasons that I previously proposed the title 'Creation story (religion)'. This is a title that, in every way, is respectful of cultural identity. Gregkaye (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC) I personally find "story" to be more offensive as well as less accurate Cmiych (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC) The topic of creation envokes strong reaction and this page remains open for comments as to why such terms as "Creation story" might cause offense. On the same vain potential titles like "Account of creation" (previously discussed), "Creation narrative", "Creation doctrine" (a common favourite amongst people who believe in these stories) and others might also receive comment. However, through our consideration of issues like of any offense that may be taken, we should remember that the issue in question is the topic of neutrality. Gregkaye (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC) This is the umpteenth time this issue has been raised. A list of alternative names Creation accounts Accounts of creation Creation stories The trouble with 'myth' is that some religions may view creation stories from other religions as myths, whereas atheists believe all creation stories are myths. I don't have a preference on any term at the moment. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Thankyou. When you look at the results it becomes clear that the formal description that is most commonly applied to a creation narrative by people who actually have a belief in the content of the narrative is "account of creation". Doctrine of creation is also mentioned quite a lot. The Catholics have even been noted to speak in terms of "dogma". Never-the-less, it can still be interpreted that all these terms have a greater degree of neutrality than "myth". Gregkaye (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC) The lead section of the mythology article says, in part, The term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story;[Refs] however, the academic use of the term generally does not refer to truth or falsity.[Refs] In the study of folklore, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form.[Refs] (look at that article for the refs). Given that, the question is whether Wikipedia (in general, and this article in particular) is speaking in a colloquial or an academic mode. I think the latter. Also see Kevin Schilbrack (2002), "Chapter 4. Myth and Metaphysics", Thinking through myths: philosophical perspectives, Routledge, ISBN 9780415254618. How about adding a paragraph to the lead saying something like The term myth is used in this article to refer to a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form. The term is used in this article in an academic rather than a colloquial sense and, as used here, carries no implication of either truth or falsity.</blickquote> Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC) First of all I would like to quickly mention, so as to add a follow up to the proposed terms that Wapondaponda and I have presented, that Creation myth has a comparatively low currency.   Thanks Bill for your valued reference to "Thinking through myths: philosophical perspectives", a clearly valuable source that may certainly inspire great content within Wikipedia articles. The section in the book that recieved the link was the section related to metaphysics[17], a word which, according to its etymology[18], labels the subject to concern issues "after physics". I merely mention this due to the fact that the branch of philosophy called metaphysics is assumed to contain ontology[19][20], an area of study that my, at least by definition, clearly related to the physical. I thus wanted to clarify the view that, when we are talking about metaphysics, we are talking about the study of non physical things - that are 'evidently' not, in every situation, always so easy to study. The definitions of the word myth do not tend to directly refer to metaphysics but frequently refer to the supernatural which, I guess, indirectly refers back to certain aspects of metaphysical conjecture. Again it can be pointed out that the validity of the supernatural may rightfully be debated but it cannot be disproven and again it can be pointed out that the use of the word myth in the current context is unnecessary. In his book Schibrack tactfully informs us that: (a friends) preferred approach to religious narratives is to read myths as an evocative form of fiction, ... p87. The word "them" could have easily have replaced the unnecessary mention of "myths".   On its first point of call the Wikipedia article on Colloquialism[21] indicates that: "Some examples of informal colloquialisms can include words (such as "y'all" or "gonna" or "wanna"), phrases (such as "ain't nothin'" and "graveyard dead"), ..." I "kind of" wonder whether various senses of the word myth may be used in circumstances beyond familiar conversation and whether they might even be used in the formal or perhaps even the literary context.   Again it should be noted that Wikipedia is an open access project and, as such, it can be argued that it should use terms in the ways in which they are generally used and understood. The history of the word myth may be interpreted to have been a curious things and the result seems to be a situation in which dictionaries seem to have adopted the practise of first presenting a version of the historical - traditional definition and then to follow this up with versions of the untrue - popular tale type definition. You are welcome to conduct your own search (or wider research) enquiries so as to assess the validity of the priority that might be rightly applied to the various dictionary definitions of myth. I've just been trying to set up a format of links to searches on "myth" through a variety of search engines so that one page would be produced of initial results while other pages would be produced of later results. The systems of Wikipedia, however, have a natural problem with the production of search urls that go further on than the initial results. Searches with http://www.blackle.com/ http://www.google.com/ and http://www.yahoo.com/ can have &start=[insert number] added to the search urls while http://www.bing.com/ can have &first=[insert number] to request pages for up to the first 1000 results. That's not that much really considering that there are millions of results. The first of the listed results will have a natural tendency to point towards encyclopedic and dictionary references related to the word myth while later results may have a greater tendency to indicate the ways in which the word myth may be used in general (but not always informal) life. The centrally fallacious definition of myth should be confirmed and it may be argued that this should rightfully be the primary definition of myth. Gregkaye (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC) The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Third Edition 1995 and Online Edition 2008 present the following definitions of myth: myth /mıθ/ n  1 [C,U] an idea or story that many people believe, but which is not true: the myth of male superiority | Most people think that bats are blind, but in fact this is a myth. | popular myth (=one that a lot of people believe) Contrary to popular myth, there is no evidence that long jail sentences really deter young offenders. | explode/dispel a myth (=prove that it is not true)  2 [C] an ancient story, especially one invented in order to explain natural or historical events: the myth of Orpheus  3 [U] this kind of ancient story in general: the giants of myth and fairy-tale.[22] dictionary notes: [C] = nouns that can be counted, usually as UNITs (dog, box), ... [U] = uncountable nouns ... Examples: Sugar/love is sweet. [U] | He came by car. [U] | felt strong desire [U] | ... The Longman Dictionary presents a sequence of definitions that confirms an understanding of myth that may easily be gained through any review of internet search results. The untrue idea idea / story definition rightly presents a primary definition of the word myth. Gregkaye (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC) This is feeling like dictionary-shopping now. Creation Myth is a professional, official term. This will be no sooner renamed than National Association for the Advancement of Colored People redirected to National Association for the Advancement of African Americans. --King Öomie 14:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC) I am genuinely sorry that you feel that. The main point, that I had previously attempted to present, related to the simple fact that the untrue - popular tale type definition of myth has a notably high currency. This is something that can be easily confirmed by spending a little time on an internet search on the word myth. The reference to the Longman’s dictionary merely provided an external confirmation of information that anyone might easily access. Gregkaye (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Courtesy Break III There are phenomenally large numbers of religious people on our planet and as is clearly presented in the Wikipedia article on: Major religious groups. Many of these people hold their own sincere beliefs in regard to a variety of religious stories and creation stories may typically be included. I do not see why “professional”, “official” or “formal” citations should be required for their positions to be considered and yet citations that fit these criteria are presented as follows: ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA JERUSALEM THE MACMILLAN COMPANY VOLUME 5 C-Dh from p.col. 1059 CREATION AND COSMOGONY IN THE BIBLE The Hebrew Bible commences with a majestic cosmological account of the genesis of the universe. According to Genesis 1:1-2:4a (the P account according to the documentary hypothesis), God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day. ... ... p.col. 1060 ... ... Another story of creation, Genesis 2:4b-24 (the J account according to the documentary hypothesis), describes a much more anthropocentric version of the origin of life on earth: with the ground watered at first from a subterranean flow; the first man formed from the earth of the ground and animated by a breath blown into his nose, the first woman was created from a rib of the man and the two placed into the Garden of Eden. ... ... p.col. 1070 IN MODERN THOUGHT ... For Kaplan the "creative life" is the essence of the creation story, ... TORAH (Heb. תּוֹרָה). The Term. Torah is derived from the root ירה which in the hifil conjunction means “to teach”. (cf. Lev. 10.11). The meaning of the word is therefore “teaching,” “doctrine,” or “instruction”; the commonly accepted “law” gives the wrong impression. … The New Standard Jewish Encyclopaedia 1970 Pub: W. H. Allen p.col. 494 COSMOGONY AND COSMOLOGY : Speculations dealing with the origin and structure of the world. JUDAISM has only one generally accepted dogma :  that God created the world. ... Jewish Encyclopedia Genesis is a historical work. Beginning with the creation of the world, it recounts the primal history of humanity and the early history of the people of Israel as exemplified in the lives of its patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their families. It contains the historical presupposition and basis of the national religious ideas and institutions of Israel, and serves as an introduction to its history and legislation.[23] Catholic Encyclopedia Creation (Lat. creatio).—I. DEFINITION. ... In technically theological and philosophical use it expresses the act whereby God brings the entire substance of a thing into existence from a state of non-existence—productio totius substantive ex nihilo sui et subjecti. words used: account, doctrine[24] [25] [26] ... The contents of the Pentateuch are partly of an historical, partly of a legal character. They give us the history of the Chosen People from the creation of the world to the death of Moses, and acquaint us too with the civil and religious legislation of the Israelites during the life of their great lawgiver. Genesis may be considered as the introduction to the other four books; it contains the early history down to the preparation of Israel's exit from Egypt.[27] A CATHOLIC DICTIONARY 1960 CREATION.  Making out of nothing. That God did so create out of nothing is the great doctrine which is expressed in the first verse of the Bible, and which became a cardinal doctrine of the Jewish and afterwards of the Christian faith.  The belief in creation is, indeed, a tenet peculiar to revealed religion. Heathen religions attributed the origin of the world to emanation, or else represented it as made out of pre-existing matter. The doctrine of the ancient philosophers is summed up in the familiar axiom "Nothing is made out of nothing." Ex nihilo nihil fit. ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ISLAM 1986 E. J. Brill publisher VOLUME V KHE-MAHI p.col. 400 AL-ḲURĀN (A.), the Muslim scripture, containing the revelations recited by Muḥammed and preserved in a fixed written form. ... It can further be noted that the words creation and myth are not both to be found on any web page via the following site specific searches. creation myth site:www.hindupedia.com creation myth site:thesikhencyclopedia.com   These references are only a starting point. It is hoped that a consideration of the substantial number of individuals who religiously believe in their doctrines of creation may be taken into account. Gregkaye (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC) This is honestly bottom-barrel apologetics. If it comes to a vote, I staunchly Oppose a name change. Until then, I have no interest in reading through the dissertation you've presented here on the rights of the deluded. --King Öomie 14:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Let's see, how many different policies does your above post violate? It is a large-scale cut and paste from a copyrighted source. It is soapboxing. It is using a talk page to discuss the topic itself rather than how to improve the article. I don't see any reason why it should not be reverted entirely. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC) "I do not see why “professional”, “official” or “formal” citations should be required for their positions to be considered..." You can consider whatever you want. The official, accepted terminology invariably trumps alternate wording suggested by interested parties. Much in the same way moonies tend to not use the term 'conspiracy theory'. --King Öomie 18:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Even if there was a problem regarding the copying of small passages of text, I still have my doubt whether any of the religious organisations involved would be that bothered about the way that the quotes have been put to use. Its also a nice thought that I might have been able to copy and paste anything approacing the majority of the texts. This having been said my hope remains that we might get back to the central issue: the lack of neutrality within the current article title and the mockery that this makes of the Wikipedia policy regarding Neutral Point of View. Gregkaye (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the link. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use [Fundamentalism and Mythology] only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Looks fine to me. Also, to head off beancounting, Google tests#Neutrality. Scholarly experts certainly hold sway here. --King Öomie 19:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC) A few points: There has been an enormous amount written on this issue, mainly by a single editor, with little indication that it is influencing the opinions of others. There is no indication to date that there is any significant movement on the local consensus, that it is appropriate to call these 'traditional stories of the supernatural origin of the universe' "creation myths". This local consensus would appear to be endorsed by a wider consensus on the use of the word "myth", as demonstrated in WP:WTA. Those opposing the use of the word have failed to demonstrate how its use, even in its informal sense, fails WP:NPOV. They have failed to present any evidence whatsoever that a majority of the relevant academic communities (or even the majority of the wider population) accepts the literal truth of any one (let alone a significant number) of the myths documented here. Therefore there is neither evidence of a valid NPOV issue needing correction, nor a WP:CONSENSUS (nor any likelihood of one developing in the near future) for a change. I would therefore recommend giving this a a rest, and that this thread be either archived, or moved to a subpage where those interested in further debate on the subject can continue their argumentum ad nauseum without disturbing the rest of us. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC) King Öomie correctly notes that when the NPOV policy enters its subsection on Religion it states, in relation to words such as mythology, that: 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. There is, however, nothing mentioned so as to recommend the use of such terminologies in article titles. To this point a number of neutrality centred arguments have been presented in relation to the current debate. Other issues may also be raised. Some issues may even go beyond the topic of neutrality. For instance the universally applicable law of priority clearly indicates that the original terms applied to a topic stand. The law of priority presents the common sense rational for the renaming of Brontosaurus as Apatosaurus and adds a further justification of the renaming of Leningrad as St Petersburg. I don't imagine that the people who originally may have held to communicated accounts of the activities of creators such as A'akuluujjusi or Zamba would have described these accounts to be myths. There is no doubt that presented information in relation to a subject may be criticised and yet the information itself should be faithfully represented. The creation myth title does not do this. A lack of a current WP:CONSENSUS has been noted and yet the fact that there are two sides of an issue that don't agree is no reason to archive the debate. It is already protected by a readily apparent important notice that makes the bold statement that: "The article title adheres to the Neutral Point of View policy ..." It has been fairly noted that little indication has thus far been presented that this issue is of influence on the opinions of others. Is this information really required? One of the arguments presented is that the title "Creation myth" restricts freedom of thought. Whether intended or not, it presents a judgement at the initial point of the article in relation to the content of the article that then follows. Gregkaye (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I'm just moving the two suggestions for a new lead, by Hrafn and Phatius McBluff respectively, into a new section:

A creation myth is the narrative projection of a culture group's sense of its sacred past which describes the original ordering of the universe and the group's relationship to the powers of the universe. They use symbolic narrative to explain the beginning where the culture at one point lacked the information to give a scientific explanation. They also provide a metaphoric 'ultimate reality' conveying a culture's sense of its particular identity that transcends science.<ref>Leeming, David (1995). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195102754 page=vii. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Missing pipe in: |isbn= (help)</ref>

and

A creation myth is a story that a culture uses to describe the original ordering of the universe. Like other myths, a creation myth expresses a culture's sense of its sacred past, its identity, and its relationship to the universe. In many cases, a creation myth acts as a symbolic model for a society's worldview and way of life.<ref>Leeming, David (1995). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195102754 page=vii. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Missing pipe in: |isbn= (help)</ref>

Does anyone else care to comment? Ben (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the second one but could accept either. Including one of these in the lead will reduce further edit strife. Grantmidnight (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I also prefer the second one, if it is a straight choice, but I am uncomfortable about the use of the present tense "uses", "expresses" etc. Many (most) of these myths are no longer promolgated even by the culture groups that originated them. Abtract (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I see little difference between them - the second may be in slightly more approachable language. Whichever is used, I suggest a paragraph at the end of the first sentence - that first sentence will then be the definition, and the remainder will serve as an expansion. I see no problem with the use of present tense - technically this is the "historic present", the same tense that's sometimes used in history-writing ("Napoleon faces Wellington: on this battle will depend the future of Europe"). PiCo (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How about this modification of my suggestion:

A creation myth is a myth that describes the original ordering of the universe. A myth is a story that expresses a cultural group's sense of its sacred past. Virtually all cultures have creation myths. A creation myth expresses a society's sense of its identity and relationship to the universe. It acts as a symbolic model for the society's worldview and way of life.<ref>Leeming, David (1995). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195102754 page=vii. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Missing pipe in: |isbn= (help)</ref>

This version is a bit choppy (we can clean that up later), but it directly reflects the statements in Leeming (the source), and it keeps distinct claims distinct. (Leeming defines "myth" separately from "creation myth".) Also, keep in mind that not all of the material in the lead has to come from Leeming. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 07:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the issue over present tense, that can be addressed easily by replacing "is" with "is or has been", "uses" with "uses or has used", etc. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Where does the source state that "virtually all cultures have creation myths"? I couldn't find it. Also I'd strongly suggest rolling the first two sentences together as "A creation myth is a cultural group's story that describes the original ordering of the universe and its sense of its sacred past." A {{further}} to myth might be appropriate at the end of the lead. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

See the last sentence of the second paragraph of Leeming's Introduction: "So it is that virtually all cultures have creation myths." As for the combination or separation of the first two sentences, I don't have very strong feelings either way. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It is time to choose which paragraph to add to the lead section. I am OK with the options being offered, the important thing is that one of them actually be included in the article.Grantmidnight (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the 2nd is best however either could be refered to religion(just an observation)Mlpearc (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-write needed?

As Hrafn notes above, the article is no more than a list of myths. I think what the average reader really wants is a discussion of creation myths as a whole - what they describe, common themes, main differences, that sort of thing.PiCo (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose this is essentially a list of creation myths and so the whole thing could probably be moved to "List of creation myths". The only problem is that there isn't an article to take its place here. Until a replacement article on creation myths generally is written I don't see a need to move the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There is already an article like that. Please see Creationism Vinnie (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Creation "myth?" Seriously? How can a article with the title "Creation myth" ever be NPOV? Some of these apparent "myths" could never be disproven short of someone creating a time machine and going back to see exactly what the heck happened. Regardless of how many references and citations are available, it's only the opinion of some people and should not be presented as fact, unless of course we can cite opposers of the evolution theory and present their views as fact. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you read this article? The mythology article? The notice at the top of this page? The talk page archives? WP:NPOV? WP:WTA? Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I still don't consider it NPOV to classify any widely accepted theory to be a myth. Some people consider Darwin's evolution by chance theory to be mythology. It's generally considered acceptable to classify something as mythology if it's something that's no longer significantly followed, but it gets controversial when we tag theories such as the Genesis theory as a myth. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm having a hard time trying to find the section of WP:NPOV that supports you. Can you please help me out by quoting the relevant sections? Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV#Bias PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, now which view is it you think we're biased against? Ben (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I second that question. Right now all the creations stories are treated equally in the article, why shouldn't it be the case ? --McSly (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a gray area. If one is to look at it that way however, we should look at evolution (a theory I actually kind of believe in along with creation) with the same uncertainty. Afterall, science once said Pluto was a planet like Mars and Jupiter. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)I believe it's biased against the creationist view. This is basically a list of different creation accounts if you read the article. Granted, many of these ancient accounts are widely considered to be mythology, but there are also many of these that are taken seriously by large populations around the world. NPOV would be to move this to something like List of religious accounts of creation. This doesn't mean that there can be no references to mythology here, it simply means we shouldn't be classifying currently popular religious beliefs as mythology as it tends to alienate believers. I've seen people who have complained about the coverage of articles related to creationism, evolution, and atheism. Want to be politically correct? Forget about saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, we need to write creation/evolution articles that are neutral. Also, how can one say that evolution theories are "fact" when every science teacher I've ever met has said that science is dynamic? Furthermore, no editor here is NPOV on the issue; editors either believe in creation or they don't. Same thing with evolution. I personally believe in creation and evolution. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(←) So your argument is essentially that this articles contents should depend on what the general population believe. Doesn't that clearly satisfy the definition of bias? That is, we would be biasing this article in favour of a groups beliefs? And what about this section of the NPOV policy: WP:GEVAL. Should we just ignore it? Ben (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. 'Creation myth' is also the 'normal' phrase used for the stories in the article. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Several points for PCHS.

1. I've seen an absolutely incredible amount of material called 'biased against creationism'. It's a meaningless phrase at this point. I've come to the conclusion, myself, that reality is biased against supernatural explanations. The manual of style is very specific on the issue you bring up- when there is an established terminology, DO NOT avoid it simply to avoid hurting one group's feelings.
2. Common misconception. No one (knowledgeable) is calling evolution theories fact. In a nutshell, the fact or law of evolution explains THAT evolution occurs, and the various theories try to explain WHY. This is similar to the state of research into gravity- everyone knows that gravity is real, but we're still a little in the dark as to WHY it exists, and how, specifically, it works. See also, Evolution as theory and fact.
3. Proving a negative is a logical impossibility, so claiming that "No one can DISprove" a story in any way increases the likelihood of it being true is a fallacy. I'm not sure where you're going in pointing out how science updates its textbooks occasionally. --King Öomie 14:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your opinion. It often helps in NPOV discussions when all users willing to state their own POV.

However, I don't think that your POV ought to be the viewpoint of the article. We should rather describe both your viewpoint (i.e., that reality is biased against supernatural explanations) as one of the common views; identify what authors have expressed this POV and what arguments and evidence they advance to support it AND the viewpoint that reality consists of both a natural and a supernatural world.

Scientists who study the physical world tend to express the confidence that they can find a physical cause for all phenomena, but there are also religious believers who assume (or place faith in) a supernatural cause. My question is whether we should write about cosmogony or creation accounts with a bias that favors "science" and materialism, or with a bias that favors religion and faith?

I daresay NPOV urges us to pick neither bias but merely to state that there are two viewpoints, and to point out that scientists are more likely to adopt a standpoint of methodological naturalism while religious believers are more likely to choose a faith-based Creationist idea. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I must ask - what does the objector to the use of "myth" prefer we use in it's place? A myth is defined by the OED as a "traditional narrative usually involving supernatural or imaginary persons and embodying popular ideas on natural or social phenomena" There is no suggestion of falsehood there, though the possibility remains. In contrast, a story is defined as "account of imaginary or past events; narrative, tale, or anecdote". A story is not necessarily false either, but the implication is actually more pronounced than with the word myth. Theory has been suggested in the past, but the scholarly definition of it does not even remotely apply to this situation - "Exposition of the principles of a science". Narrative - "spoken or written account of connected events in order of happening" - fits pretty well, but I can't really see it as a fitting descriptor for all of these different accounts. And as for the word account - "narration or description". It's not really descriptive enough either, nor truly applicable to all. Myth seems to be the only truly fitting descriptor and the pov is only seen by those who don't seem to understand what it really means, which isn't our problem. (though they often like to try and make it ours)Farsight001 (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not being the original objector, I can't speak for him or her, but I too object to the use of the term "myth" on NPOV grounds. "Myth" can be interpreted as an invented story, imaginary or fictitious event, or false collective belief. Instead of using the word "myth", does anyone object to the use of the words "belief" or "doctrine" instead? 69.245.90.210 (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The notice at the top of this page says the article title is consistent with WP:NPOV, yet you tell us it is not. There are then three possibilities.

1. The notice at the top of this page is incorrect, in which case you should identify what part of the NPOV policy is being infringed and how it is being infringed;
2. You are incorrect, in which case the likely reason for this is that you have not read or failed to understand the policy; or
3. Both you and the notice are correct, in which case the NPOV policy contradicts itself.

Please help us work this out by giving us a little more than a vague reference to the NPOV policy and no accompanying explanation. Cheers, Ben (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

After reading the exceptionally long discussion and rationalisation around the term "Myth" I must still object strongly to it's use in reference to my beliefs. You are welcome to use a number of other words, for example and in order of preference: Creation beliefs, Creation doctrine, Creation philosophies, Creation stories, Creation rationale, non scientific creation viewpoints, Creation points of view, Creation world views, Creation allegory, Creation accounts, Creation faiths. It should not be difficult to find an alternative, even having a redirect from a "Creation Myth" page will be acceptable. Jpvosloo (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition of creation myth from Oxford Dictionary of Creation Myths: "A creation myth is a myth that describes the original ordering of the universe. A myth is a story that expresses a cultural group's sense of its sacred past. Virtually all cultures have creation myths. A creation myth expresses a society's sense of its identity and relationship to the universe. It acts as a symbolic model for the society's worldview and way of life." (Leeming, David (1995). A Dictionary of Creation Myths.) Note the word "sacred" - creation myths involve gods or other supernatural beings and agencies. To put that another way, sacredness, not truth, defines a creation myth. PiCo (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You can strongly object all you want, Jpvosloo, but as per the manual of style, the established, scholarly terminology will not be avoided out of sympathy for a particular group. We "are welcome" to use the term Creation Myth, and will continue to do so. --King Öomie 14:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Having this debate every 2 weeks adds a great deal of stability and regularity to my life. Thanks. Side note: Did anyone actually followup on changing this to "List of creation myths" as mentioned at some point? Cmiych (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The regularity of this debate should itself evidence that there is a problem that needs to be addressed - namely that there is a group of people who feel that the article is biased against them. May I introduce several obvious points that I think all people in both camps can agree with:

1. The majority opinion of the scientific community is that the theory of Evolution, or some variation of it, represents truth.
2. There are a large number of people, including a small minority of scientists, who today believe that the theory of Evolution is false.
3. Both groups pose questions to the other, which they themselves believe the other cannot adequately answer.
4. Therefore, regardless of any of our personal beliefs, there is undeniably controversy on this topic in our time, with a large number of people on either side, albeit more on one side than the other.
5. If the NPOV policy is to be of any value whatsoever, then it should be apparent that it applies utmost when there is a current controversy in play.
6. One of the meanings of myth is (according to wiktionary) "A commonly-held but false belief, a common misconception; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing..."
7. Irrespective of whether wikipedia chooses to narrow the definition of the word 'myth' to exclude falsification, most visitors to the site will not have read the wikipedia policy on the word.
8. It should therefore come to no surprise that those who take a creation position should feel that the term 'myth' is non-neutral and bias against their beliefs.

Now, if indeed the current title is in compliance with the letter of NPOV and WTA, then perhaps those policies are also in need of adjustment, because NPOV is not currently evident here. Or, have these policies become immutable documents of rule to which all must submit without questioning? :) As to alternate suggestions, I don't think either party would object to 'Creation Belief'. It may also be worth organizing the topic into two sections: one for currently held beliefs, and one for beliefs that have been long abandoned by all and can truly be called myths in all senses of the words. PKA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.48.213 (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly there has been heated discussion on the neutrality of the title of this article. It seems to me there are plenty of definitions that support the neutrality of the title. Because of this, those arguing that the title is neutral are correct if you use the definitions that do not define myths as "false". As it has been clearly stated, the word myth is not being used to mean "false". This being the case, I think we should all be in agreement that another word could be used in it's place. We can all see that the word myth has created significant controversy because of it's connotation and other possible definitions, so unless someone is using the word myth to mean "false" then we should all be in agreement that a title such as "Creation Accounts" would be a suitable title. As we are all clearly trying to eliminate the controversy of this title (and the word "Myth" has obviously caused it) , I see no reason that anyone would object to changing the title. --Isaaclill (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternatives to "myth"

I believe that Cosmogony is a rather obscure word, so I'd prefer to see Creation account as it connotes neither validity nor falsehood.

Furthermore, a Creation account can include both religious accounts (as in Creationism, a view clearly deriving from faith and theological belief) and scientific ideas such as the Big Bang Theory which is based only on physical science. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

An explanation of the word is available right there on it's linked article for those who don't know what it means. Falcon8765 (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the common, ordinary use of the word "myth" is so dominant in societal thinking, all the way back to the days of our bedtime stories, that it's only reasonable for the reader to assume that he/she certainly already knows what that simple four-letter word means. Therefore, how reasonable is it even to suspect that any reader might reason that they don't know what "myth" means, with or without the "creation" prefix? Is this line of reasoning by Wiki's fictitious "ordinary reader" logical for any of us to even imagine:

IS THE FOLLOWING A LIKELY SCENARIO??

"Hm, 'myth'. That's something that is imaginary or not true. It's fictional like the Santa Claus myth or 'Peter and the Wolf' and the Loch Ness monster and urban legends. But just in case 'they' are thinking of some other kind of myth (though I don't think there IS any other kind), maybe I'd better look it up by clicking on the light-blue Wikilink." Hogwash!

From umpteen years teaching in university classrooms, and almost as many years as a student, I know that people are loathe to look something up if they think it's somehow beneath their dignity on the basis that "I already know that. When we read the word "myth," unless we are among "the few and the proud" who are specifically schooled in a technical/academic/literary genre, highly atypical usage of the word, our kneejerk response is to run with the MOST familiar definition we've had of that word throughout our lifetime. And that's going to be an untruth that has been whitewashed as truth.

May I illustrate from the Wall Street Journal's use of the word myth, and the connotation they clearly expect from readers:

• Jun 20, 2009 . "A Doctor's View of Obama's Healthcare Plans: The Myth of Prevention."

• Feb 20, 2010. "The Myth of the Techno-Utopia." The complete sentence: "It's fashionable to hold up the Internet as the road to democracy and liberty in countries like Iran, but it can also be a very effective tool for quashing freedom. Evgeny Morozov on the myth of the techno-utopia."

• Apr 24, 2009: "...the Treasury for getting only 66 cents in value for every TARP dollar spent. This accusation would be troubling if true, but the 66 cent claim is a myth. The 66 cent conclusion is no more sound than a subprime mortgage."

• November 20, 2009: Lies, Myths, and Yellow Journalism. "Because this editorial is based on deception (or, more charitably, bad journalism), it's not surprising that harmful myths about education reform are also woven in. The myth that spending more money on poor and minority kids is a waste ("some of the worst school districts in the country spend the most money on students"), the myth that vouchers help kids from low-income communities (they haven't worked, which is why they're off the table), the myth that strict accountability will close the achievement gap (it won't, although accountability with clear standards, and with more capacity to meet those standards will), and the myth that teachers' unions are the enemy (they have problems, but reformers need to work with, not against them).

An ordinary Google search of Wall St. Journal + "myth" turned up these and many more. Please try the search for yourself on any of your favorite printed sources that contain OpEd's. We can continue to play ostrich and bury our heads in the sand, or we can stop trying to force "myth" with all its shades of gray down people's throats.

None of us were around when the term "creation myth" was spawned by a group of the intelligencia who probably had at least a couple of years of Greek, so the choice of words isn't our fault. But we do have other terms that are not ambiguous, even terms that no less prestigious an agency than NASA has chosen, such as cosmogony. True, it's not well known, but since it isn't, that's the type of word that most of us WILL click on if it's blue. (I also like the suggestions that start with 'creation' and are followed by narrative or account or whatever. Thanks. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And Wikipedia should favor one term or another (despite the sources) because...? This sounds like expert-shopping more than anything. You know what the word means, are you just worried that OTHER people won't? It's explained everywhere it appears. This sounds like the complaints at Talk:Muhammad/Images. --King Öomie 13:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Creation myth/Cosmogony/Cosmology/Cosmogeny

This article has used the term cosmogony throughout-more than it does "creation myth". The cosmogony article and this one (which do not agree with each other) are now so hopelessly confusing that I can't tell what either one of them are trying to say. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this flurry of words an attempt to bury the word myth? Professor marginalia (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is. Ben (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thought so. These articles are just a mess. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And the source given in the opening sentence doesn't even use the term "creation myth" once. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've started a user subpage with descriptions of these articles here. All are welcome to edit my subpage! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting subarticles back here

I'm really troubled by how much content that I've checked out appears to be copyright, and much of it is so old that has already been moved several times making it difficult to find to check the histories for the dates when they originated here. I'm going to take it upon myself to redirect those new subarticles back here until these all get check out better. I think that's the easiest step at this point, allowing editors to spend more time on fixing the content than arguing over procedure. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources - Plagiarism - Cosmogony

The article has been completely dismantled, plagiarism twice now in the few sentences left in it, and I've caught several cases now where the sources failed to verify the claim attached to it. This article is about "creation myth". No, you don't get to change the term...that's what is. Creation myth. A creation myth is a type of cosmogony. One type. Stop conflating the two willy-nilly. And for those hunting through sources to find those that use "cosmogony" without "creation myth" or without an absolute, ironclad synonymous usage (and not all usages are synonymous) -- not going to fly. And cherry-picking through anachronistic definitions of cosmogony in 100 year old encyclopedias are a waste of time. Okay!? Professor marginalia (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

More plagiarism and playing games with the term cosmogony-this time in a single sentence.

• Hyers: "In a religious context, however, myths are storied vehicles of supreme truth which to the religion or society is the most basic and important truths of all."
• Afaprof01[28]: "In a religious context, cosmogonies are storied vehicles of supreme truth which to the religion or society is the most basic and important truths of all."

Gone.

Not only have these edits dismantled the page to the point where most dictionary definitions have more content, but none of the material put in its place has been supported by the refs. There have been at least four cases now now that were pure cut-and-paste plagiarism. I'm restoring this article to its original form. Professor marginalia (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you intend to do anything with the articles split from this one? The ones that go to great lengths to expel the 'creation myth' term? --King Öomie 18:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And when Afa returns, he can feel free to explain why a technical split under WP:SIZE justifies a content change like a complete reversal in debated terminology- a change that he's well aware under normal circumstances would be reverted in seconds. --King Öomie 19:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to work this out now. This article has never been in fantastic shape as far as I can see. Creation myths are a well researched topic. This article needs to focus on the study of creation myths, the key or recurring themes, the more prominent thinkers and archivists and the agreements and disagreements in their understandings of creation myth (Tyler, Bultmann, Lang,Levi-Strauss, Jung, Freud, Malinowski, Eliade, etc). The lengthy list of creation myths can go when there's more content, but we need worthwhile content. It wastes time padding it with content that doesn't check out.

The sections that are now repeated in other subarticles still have problems-most of it isn't sourced, and now they're hidden away in obfuscatory article titles. "Cosmological beliefs" - no. These aren't "beliefs" - they're "myths". Myths have a specific definition-they are sacred primordial stories that belong(ed) to a culture or people. Not all creation myths are cosmological. Some of these terms will overlap, but they are not strictly synonymous. We find creation myths which aren't cosmological myths. (And note, not all cosmologies are myths! Creation myth and cosmology are not synomyms; a creation myth and a cosmological myth are types of cosmology.) This is an encyclopedia-carelessly lumping them as if they're all the same isn't helpful. The subarticle title names don't work, but I don't think article renaming is worth the effort yet because I don't think all of them make sense grouped this way in a single article anyway. I don't know what others think, but I think that keeping in one spot and cleaning up here first makes more sense than scattering them throughout several articles on the wiki before they're in good shape. I'd prod the others for now, and clean them up here then figure out which can be grouped in stand-alone articles. (Find sources, and clean up the copypaste that I continue to stumble on, raising serious copyright issues.) Professor marginalia (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well put. There seems to be a lot of POV pushing in this article. Especially towards the pro-religion side. Falcon8765 (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there are lot of people on the Creationist side who don't believe in "neutral editing". They can't bear to see an article which fails to imbue their viewpoint with the imprimatur of acceptance. (Maybe they aren't very confident in their faith. ;-)

A parallel problem sometimes also arises when people on the other side argue against giving Creationist ideas "equal validity". It's almost as if they don't trust the reader to read about both viewpoints and make up their own minds. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You MUST be aware that that's actually Wikipedia policy. Consult WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE. --King Öomie 22:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Using the word Myth is NPOV

Myth might means mythology but it is a loaded word, and it is argumentative that evolution is taken as fact but the creation story is taken as myth. Very subjective stuff, since more people agree on a creator than people who believe in random Darwinian theory. Another name is needed to reflect a Neutrality to the subject. Cuz most humans believe in this "myth" so must have some truth to it.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been argued to death; please review previous discussion and the archives. Let's not start flogging that horse again. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

i SAW that after the fact. I guess i am not alone.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Alone? Definitely not. Wrong? Absolutely. --King Öomie 15:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:TALK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Most people believe it, so it must be at least partly true"? Within the last two thousand years, hundreds of little tidbits of cultural knowledge have been completely rejected. Diseases aren't caused by magic (or sin), the sun doesn't rotate around the Earth, flies don't pop into being on rotting meat. All of these things, at one time or another, were a given. EVERYONE believed them. Now look at those and tell me that popular ideas MUST be true. --King Öomie 15:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I am curious have the evolutionist yet proved that man evolved from apes? That to me also should be called a scientific myth. That randomist over a 100000 years produces life in all its diversity. Does that not also sound like the magical myths you listed?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC) You could have saved time and said "Fields of science I don't understand must be wrong". Suffice it to say that scientific evidence points to Common descent of Apes AND man from a "cousin" race that no longer exists (except in fossil evidence). It would sound like a myth if it were presented without evidence, but in fact, the evidence for the real-world versions of your straw-man points is comprehensive and irrefutable. You can find much of it here, but I suspect that you will not, and will instead consider yourself to be completely correct. --King Öomie 21:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC) I wish i could get into this but i have to humor you. It is not that i do not understand, it is that is disagree with the conclusion. If GOD (scary word isnt it) is an artist, i would expect a certain commanality across creation. Some call it direct evolution, i think more like direct creation. All subjective. Who created the big bang is identical to who created God (so we are stuck in the same place).The original Porsche model and the new Porsche model are related but not by direct mechanism of evolution. i.e. the old Porsche car didn't growing new lights and new alloys and become the new 911.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Reminder - this talk page isn't a public messageboard to debate God, logic, evolution, automotive design, the Big Bang, or anything else. Please review WP:TALK. If it continues down this vein, I'll refactor the comments. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Natural vs. Supernatural

A very old version of Creation myth said:

• In the USA, religiously conservative Christians argue that the Big Bang theory and Darwinian macroevolution constitute the creation myth of modern Western civilization. Adherents of these scientific theories respond that unlike the creation myths of earlier cultures, they are subject to verification and refinement by the scientific method, rather than believed only on grounds of authority and faith. [29]

I wonder if we are using the word "myth" to convey the idea that a supernatural explanation is one thing, and a natural explanation is another. If so, is there an implication that natural explanations are better, more reliable, or simply more mainstream?

And is this the reason for a division of creation accounts into supernatural (Creation myth) and natural? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

From Merriam-Webster:

1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : parable, allegory

2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society

By definition, "myth" deals with ideas that fall into the realm of "ostensibly historical events", parables, allegories, beliefs or traditions, especially those that embody ideals and institutions. Theories that are subject to a process of observation, evaluation and integration -- that is to say, the scientific method -- fall outside of the definition of "myth." TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

@Ed Poor-The supernatural distinction just doesn't neatly apply--that's a worldview we apply to things today but few today who actually study cultural myths think it's a valid prism to apply to stories coming from a different time, a different worldview. Imagine an alien visitor looking at an abstract line diagram used to illustrate magnetism in a physics book and assuming from it that physicists really consider magnetism a supernatural force, a kind of "black arrows" magic. This "supernatural" distinction has been used, but it's really too simple. Myths are more like literature than they are "step-by-step directions how to build a universe". I just don't think the distinction finds much favor anymore. Besides, I think that any real development of the supernature/nature analysis of myth best belongs in myth rather than here. Creation myths are but a subset of myth. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)