Wikipedia

Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 22

< Talk:Genesis creation narrative
Latest comment: 10 years ago by ThaddeusB in topic Requested move
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Requested move

Latest comment: 10 years ago344 comments55 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus - Both sides make strong arguments; neither has a clear edge by policy. On a side note, all parties are reminded to remain from personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and other unproductive behavior. ThaddeusB (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


Genesis creation narrative → Genesis creation myth – This is an article about a creation myth. The term "creation myth" is the main descriptor in the first sentence, and it brings it in line with Wikipedia convention (see Chinese creation myth, Serer creation myth, Ancient Egyptian creation myths, and Mesoamerican creation myths for examples). jps (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support The current name is a perfect example of Wikipedia's systemic bias. Christian editors (who should all click on that link before commenting) must allow their religion to be treated equally with all others. If it is the true religion, such treatment will do it no harm. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The term "myth" represents the trivialization of the narrative of the creation of the world found in Genesis. This has been argued cogently. To call something a myth is to trivialize it and minimize it relative to science and rational thought. But this is a waste of energy because Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. People can think for themselves. When they come to a Wikipedia article, they want just the facts. They do not want a special spin put on the information they receive. "Religion" is a valid area for an encyclopedia to provide unvarnished information on a defined subject, and that is how the article should remain. Bus stop (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The term myth is a type of literary genre. Whether you think it insulting or not is irrelevant to the way it is handled in the WP:MAINSTREAM academic literature on the subject. Genesis is a myth like any of the others named. jps (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Good night, not again... Will the one-sided POV war on neutral language never cease until enemies of the Judaeo-Christian scripture being treated impartially will finally get their way? Consensus has been established time and again that "myth" is NOT the most neutral choice of word because it is pushing what we call a "point of view" and one that too many editors / readers do not share. Furthermore, contradicting HiLo48 above, this does NOT meet the criteria for Wikipedia's definition of Systemic Bias by any means. At WP:BIAS, the first question we ask is "What information is being excluded as a result of Systemic Bias"? Having the word "narrative" in the title is not exluding any information whatsoever. Remember, you are pretending that the word "myth" is "neutral" while meaning the same thing as "narrative" since it would not be neutral to use any word that the dictionary says is a synonym of "fiction" (oh but wait - the dictionary does say myth is a synonym of "fiction"... so much for pretended "neutrality"...) The other articles are not parallel precedents for this one, because they seem to follow the convention for accounts that do not have large numbers of adherents today. Why should this one be made to follow that convention? If there were any reliable sources proving that a significant number of people object to calling any of those other accounts "myths", it might be more parallel, but again: faulty analogy leading to a fallacious conclusion. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Yep, pure systemic bias, and not the narrowly defined version you have chosen to use. Oh, and massive obfuscation as well. Treat ALL religions equally. It won't hurt yours. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
NPOV means we have to treat all widespread belief-systems current in the world equally. This also helps not to alienate vast numbers of editors as you would apparently wish us to do. NPOV does not mean we have to treat current belief systems equally with discarded ones that no longer have widespread followings. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Paranoid, irrational bullshit. How can the number of adherents possibly determine the truth of a belief system? Once upon a time Christianity had very few adherents. I guess its creation story was a myth then. HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
No, you don't get it. We're not out to "dtermine the truth" of anything here at wikipedia. Get that out your mind. We're here to follow NPOV and treat all current widespread belief systems neutrally, impartially and equally. We certainly do not have to treat discarded belief systems with practically no believers today, equally to current ones. You should have realized this before arguing that we must. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Why does the number of believers make any difference? A belief system is a belief system as long as people believe it. No more. No less. And incidentally, there are considerable numbers of Christians who believe Genesis to be a myth (certainly in the technical sense). So are such Christians also "enemies of the Judaeo-Christian scripture", Til Eulenspiegel? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Andy, for Wikipedia purposes, the number of believers in ANY idea helps determine its status as a SPOV (Significant Point of View). This is so basic policy I thought you would know that. I didn't call anyone enemies of the Judaeo-Christian scripture" but if they believe it to be a myth and want to enforce this belief on others, they are "enemies of the Judaeo-Christian scripture being treated impartially" as I said. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
"Significant point of view" is not the Wikipedia policy. WP:NPOV is, and there is no indication that the number of believers has anything to do with how we treat a subject in that policy. What is important is how the reliable sources treat the subject. As is clear from the first line of this article, reliable sources identify this bible story as a creation myth. That unreliable sources or the unwashed masses may not like that designation is not germane to our discussion. jps (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with NPOV some more. How widespread a viewpoint is has everything to do with how significant it is and how much due weight to accord it, per long-established policy. The Buddhist viewpoint should be welcome on articles of Buddhist scripture, Muslim viewpoint on articles of Muslim scripture, same for Hindus, Jews etc. because anyone who has cracked open a Comparative Religion 101 book knows these are the dominant creeds in the worlds today, those that even governments claim to subscribe to. But the sacred books of Christianity you seem to have singled out with a peculiar hostility toward acknowledging any Christian viewpoints as legitimate. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
You are the one who needs a policy refresher. We don't have ideological ownership of articles here. Buddhist POV is not how we write ostensibly "Buddhist" articles nor is the believer's point of view relevant for how we write anything. All that is relevant are the points of view of reliable sources. Since the reliable sources agree that the subject of this article is a creation myth, that's what Wikipedia says it is. It doesn't matter if your pastor takes issue with the designation because he is not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. jps (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
You're rewording what I said into a strawman. I did not say, nor do I think, that "Buddhist POV is how we oostensibly write Buddhist articles", I stated that the viewpoints of Buddhist theologians are welcome on articles pertaining to Buddhist scripture. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Then your argument is completely irrelevant since no one is saying we aren't "welcoming" such viewpoints. What we are trying to do is identify reliable sources that characterize this story. They all call it a creation myth. So... that's where we are. jps (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Why should we not "treat discarded belief systems with practically no believers today, equally to current ones"? HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Are you serious? No, really, you went there???! Hey, how about the Flat Earth Society... Nobody believes in that anymore... But people used to, so I guess we have to give it equal time with all the currently held beliefs...! LOL Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia must treat ALL religions equally, otherwise our systemic bias will inevitably be on display. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Our policy has always consistently not to give largely discarded ideas of the past (like flat earth, or the existence of Zeus) equal weight with current beliefs, but if you want to suggest a policy change, you need to go to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The belief that Genesis is literally true is largely discarded - by most Christians. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
No it's not. That's where I say you are pushing a POV by exaggerating the numbers who you say don't accept it, and diminishing the true numbers of those who hold it canonical and accurate, in a blatantly polemical attempt to weaken the position of the Churches that declare it canonical, while strengthening the position of those who would reject it as "mythology". There is no reason to succumb to such attempts and not pursue the most neutral course possible. The idea that there is anything whatsoever "biased" about the word "narrative" is just sour grapes rhetoric and must look like a joke to anyone coming on the scene. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure, there are fundamentalist churches out there, but they aren't going to be "weakened" by Wikipedia's attempt to use the most reliable sources which indicate this particular bible story is best characterized as a "creation myth". Looks like a case of WP:RGW to me. "Narrative" is a biased term since there are no other articles on creation myths which aren't so identified. "Bias" in this sense, is simply indicating a different treatment than the norm. jps (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Til Eulenspiegel, that's irrelevant obfuscation and diversion. No. Wikipedia must treat ALL religions equally, otherwise our systemic bias will inevitably be on display. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Pointless post that says nothing constructive. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
User:HiLo48, really? only "pointless"? It isn't "Paranoid, irrational bullshit" as you called the last editor? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Resorting to misrepresentation seems a very Christian way to behave. NOT! HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
You're not allowed to attack people's religions here. Please delete your comment and do not continue. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
No attack on any religion there, nor any personal attacks. But I have definitely attacked irrational posts and unacceptable behaviour. Those of you wanting some religions treated differently from others are the ones attacking other people's religions. You're telling us that some religions are less important than yours. That quite the opposite from what I am doing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: A narrative is defined as a story written or oral. The "truth" of that story is not contained in the definition. Myth means explicitly that the narrative is not true. It is not within our remit on this or any topic to decide what is true or not true, and in this topic area biblical scholars and reliable sources most certainly describe genesis and its creation story from multiple angles. The article must first describe the several mainstream views, and second we must not in any way prejudice the reader with our own beliefs by selecting one of those views as the truth and including that slant in the article title. For that reason narrative as is used in the title is neutral, myth is not.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC))
So, treat ALL religions equally. No creation stories can be myths, can they? HiLo48 (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I really wouldn't care if all those other articles were moved to "creation story", it wouldn't bother me none... But this is not a parallel situation because this is a current belief, so those cannot be precedents for this category of article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
We should call things what they are regardless of what people actually believe. Some actually believe the earth is flat. Reliable sources do not. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The term "myth" belittles the subject of the article and it does so gratuitously, without a corresponding benefit. There is an issue of taste. It is in poor taste to put a "spin" on the title when bland and nondescript language is available for the title. "Myth" detracts from any weightiness the story might have whereas "narrative" does not. We don't need to elevate the importance of rational thinking nor do we need to minimize the regard in which we should hold fantastical imagery such as that conjured up in the story told in Genesis. The reader is not coming to this article to find out if the story is true or not and as such it is gratuitous for us to foist an opinion upon the reader concerning the veracity of Genesis and to do so in the title of the article. The reader more likely wants to know the contents of Genesis. Some readers might think the story is true while most will not. Our job is not to change their opinion either way. Bus stop (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Any "weightiness" will only be seen by believers. Religious belief must never influence this global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so. The story is significant owing to it being a cornerstone of religions. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the interest in it is solely based on wholehearted and blind and gullible belief. This is a story that may be interpreted by some as having metaphorical meaning. It may be seen as being beautiful in some way. Readers may be interested in the content for a wide variety of reasons. The story has substantiality not least due to its staying power. I think you are focussed on a literal reading. That is one more reason that we should not have "myth" in the title. We are not, or we should not be, overly focussed on its veracity or absence thereof. Bus stop (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Most mythologists who actually study the subject do not treat the (lack of) veracity as an overwhelming feature of myths, so why are you? jps (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Bully alert In ictu oculi has gone to my Talk page threatening to block me for personal attacks here. I have aggressively criticised posts and behaviour, but have not made personal attacks. Blocking me would certainly eliminate an annoying opponent, I guess. Reminds me of those times when my Sunday School teachers couldn't answer my questions and said that if I didn't believe it I would go to hell. The first step in pushing me away from religion. Discuss the issues rationally. Please don't threaten. HiLo48 (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
That, "bully" is a further WP:NPA. The warning on User talk:HiLo48 refers to a history of previous blocks which seem to be related to swearing laden personal attacks. And he responds with further attacks. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I have made no personal attacks. I have very strongly criticised certain posts and behaviours. You have bullied, threatened and brought up irrelevant history. That's just more bad behaviour, which suggests lack of effective argument. Please stick to logic and rational discussion. Your case will be much stronger. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Support Scholarly sources in comparative religion and the like would definitely classify this particular narrative as a myth along with all of the other fictional accounts of the creation of the world/universe espoused throughout the ages across cultures. One such source has been cited above, and there is no doubt a multitude of such sources.

    According to Alan Dundes, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind assumed their present form,[1]

It seems that there is a hidden pov here that because some people actually believe in the account it should not be called a myth because that would denigrate their respective belief system. That would seem to represent an attempt to posit as truth something that decidedly is a man-made work of fiction attempting to explain the world. And it would seem that here is where the question of the status of revelation in prophetic traditions meets modernity and epistemology.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that they actually do generally refer to creation stories of existing religions as myths? It would seem that rather than relegate Christianity to mythology, they show greater respect for other religions. TFD (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, to make your point, you have to resort to comparing an existing belief to a bunch of defunct ones, that is basically pov "pushing" since it favors the landscape as you'd evidently like it to be, not as it is... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the inflammatory posts here are those demanding that the Christian creation story be given different treatment from at least some others. In a global encyclopaedia we simply cannot do that and retain global credibility. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
You're missing the point. You're demanding that the story of Christianity (er, not just Christianity, several other current belief systems use this text) not be treated the same as other living beliefs, and that it be treated instead the same as a bunch of dead ones. And you don't see that as pov "pushing" slightly? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 07:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
More misrepresentation and bullshit. I want ALL creation stories treated the same, as myths. I never said otherwise. I wonder why you keep accusing me of saying things I've never said? And drop the crap that it's more than Christianity. I would be truly surprised if anyone other than conservative Christians want their religion treated as special in this area. HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Your comparison is invalid, because you have compared Christianity, only one of several world creeds that involve this topic, with a group of beliefs that are no longer in existence, and demanded that it be treated "equal" to these dormant beliefs, and you likewise demand that Christianity NOT be counted among the living faiths, none of which are included among your supposed analogies. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
BULLSHIT! THAT ISN'T WHAT I SAID. WHEN WILL YOU EVER STOP MISREPRESENTING ME? That's really patheitc discussion technique. HiLo48 (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Why should deference be given to currently held superstitions over dormant ones? WP:RECENTISM would be the likely result of such a principled undertaking. jps (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
You simply do not comprehend wikpedia's cornerstone WP:NPOV policy. It obligates us to treat all major points of view widely held today with equal consideration. It does not, never has, and won't feasibly obligate us to treat dormant points of view once held in 1300, in 300, or in 700 BC with equal consideration to current ones. Give the eggnog some time to wear off, please. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
No, WP:NPOV makes no such claims, which is probably why you don't directly quote the policy. Here's what is says, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." So, it obligates us to treat all major points of view from reliable sources with equal consideration. Since I have seen you provide no reliable sources contradicting the classification of this story as a "creation myth", the appropriate and, indeed, neutral thing to do here is to call it what it is. jps (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wikipedia at its worst; lots of ungrounded discussion tending to show our tendency to systematic bias by privileging the culturally dominant religion here. For a change of air, how about looking at some sources. Maybe: David Adams Leeming (2010). Creation Myths of the World: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 126. ISBN 978-1-59884-174-9. ? Has anybody got more RS which can be used as a basis for a reasoned decision on this? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh yeah! Have you looked through the last 11 discussions? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 07:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
How about some independent, reliable sources from outside the influence of our systemic bias? HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I'm not discouraged by the number of attempts it has taken to get this right. Back in the 1800s we'd have probably had that many debates about whether women should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. And as for letting those blacks have a say... HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
You are using "systemic bias" to exclude? That's a new one, WP:BIAS exists to highlight exclusion of views due to bias. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 07:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
That reads like another complete misunderstanding, or even worse, misrepresentation of my position. HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
How so? You want to exclude the vast body of sources testifying that scholars have specifically objected to labelling this narrative a "myth", and not take that vast body into consideration, and your pretext for the exclusion is... systemic bias! Am I wrong? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 07:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I have seen WP:FRINGE objections to the term "myth" made by fundamentalists with no academic training in comparative literature, but do you have any reliable sources for us to consider? jps (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely, as I said several prominent scholars, it would be interesting to see you tar them all with the brush of "fundamentalist" for not upholding your litmus test. But the debate is so tiresome, and so endless, the sources have been produced so many times, they are in the archives and on my subpage, so I'll tell you what. I'm not going to bother pasting them here yet again as long as consensus remains against this WP:POINTY move request. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Since this very article declares this story to be a creation myth, it is fairly clear that you don't have good enough sources to change the lede. So the claim that these are good enough to dominate the article's name is not very compelling. jps (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe that may be part of an earlier consensus compromise, but there seems to be a precedent for violating compromise agreements and going for the whole hog. At any rate, it is quite evident that you do not find anything said in opposition to the move "compelling", since you have elected to support the move. It's also evident that you do not speak for everyone else. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it sucks that consensus can change, but welcome to Wikipedia! jps (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

@Til Eulenspiegel, no I hadn't looked - but having just done so I don't see much discussion of pertinent sources. Perhaps you could humour me by listing what your consider to be the three strongest RS which have emerged in previous discussions, and we can proceed from there. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
It's 2:45 AM here so maybe later, but you couldn't have looked too hard, I'm certain sources came up in most of the endless debates. I have a long list with several of them in one of my subpages somewhere also, demonstrating that numerous prominent scholars and theologians do indeed argue that the actual text is not necessarily the same as a "myth" for a variety of reasons. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 07:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I would also be interested to hear specific arguments made in RS. I would imagine that they focus on the anthropomorphic dimension as opposed to an emphasis on the supernatural or abstract, but would such a definition of the term "myth" be artificially constrained, not to mention uncontested?
Using "narrative" without qualification would appear to lend an air of actual historicity to the 'myth', so even if "myth" doesn't generate consensus (due to disagreement among RS?), it would seem that at the very least 'narrative' should be replaced with 'story' or another term that conveys the fact that the text is fiction--one among many such stories. According to the definition by Dunde above, at least the term "myth" includes the sacred ("a sacred narrative"), whereas story doesn't. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
So you openly admit that your intention with favoring the term "myth" is to convey "the fact that the text is fiction", in other words, you want wikipedia to be able to declare which parts of which religious texts of which faiths were written intended as "fiction" and which were intended as non-fiction? Thanks for being up front with your agenda here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
This is nothing to do with finding sources. Our systemic bias gets in the way of that ever being effective and fair. It's all about quality and objective editing, and treating ALL religions equally. HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
O I think it's very much about finding sources. Looking at a more serious encyclopedia I find this content:

The myth of creation is the symbolic narrative of the beginning of the world as understood by a particular community. The later doctrines of creation are interpretations of this myth in light of the subsequent history and needs of the community. Thus, for example, all theology and speculation concerning creation in the Christian community are based on the myth of creation in the biblical book of Genesis

. Is there really RS that considers the OT account of the creation of the universe to be not a myth? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This eleventh proposal smacks of WP:BIAS against the Christian minority on Wikipedia. Furthermore:
  • Wikipedia tends not to use the term "creation myth." See Nasadiya Sukta, Popol Vuh, Diné Bahaneʼ, Aggañña Sutta, and other articles for the creation stories of other religions. Even using the term "creation myth" in the article body is against standard Wikipedia practice.
  • In scholarly terms, the Genesis story is technically not a "creation myth," since it is a canonical written account (a work of literature), rather than an oral tradition (although the written account may be based on one or more oral traditions).
  • A search of Google Books shows that "Genesis creation narrative" and "Genesis creation story" are by far the more commonly used terms. The phrase "Genesis creation myth" fails WP:COMMONNAME.
  • On procedural grounds, there is no reason for yet another RM on this topic, since nothing has changed since the last time. -- 101.119.29.174 (talk) 10:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC) — 101.119.29.174 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I repeat. I'm not discouraged by the number of attempts it has taken to get this right. Back in the 1800s we'd have probably had that many debates about whether women should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. And as for letting those blacks have a say... HiLo48 (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
You are now using the historic struggles to give women and blacks a franchise and a say, as a contorted argument to deny one of the major world religions a say in their own interpretations of their own canon. Gotta hand it to your astuteness. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
No one seems to be suppressing you from having your say, Til. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, article titles should be consistent. Either rename all the others "creation narrative" too, or rename this one back to "creation myth". That uneducated people might be offended by the word "myth" should not weigh in our considerations. Genesis is, objectively, a creation myth. People who find objective facts offensive should avoid reading encyclopedias. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per a number of the reasons given above. I also find the timing of this proposal interesting. Hot Stop 14:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
    What's interesting about the timing? It doesn't look like much was happening at this page previous to this. jps (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
    I'm guessing Hot Stop was implying that this move proposal was somehow part of the so-called "War on Christmas". ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support (Fantastic and appropriate timing btw.) How on earth has this article, which I just stumbled across on a jaunt, managed to pander to the christian fundies for so long. There are few more famous and popular myths in the western world. I would suggest the compromise of "Tale" rather than "Narrative" if progress cannot be made on this eleventh attempt. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. For a variety of reasons which won't convince those opposing, but there is IMHO a systemic bias towards religion in Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have as its mission the righting of great wrongs. You are saying that there is "a systemic bias towards religion in Wikipedia"[1] but you aren't articulating any reasons for feeling that way. I would agree that we would need to address "systemic bias" but how would the title of this article—"Genesis_creation_narrative"—be an example of systemic bias? If I recall correctly, in past discussions, it was demonstrated that the reference to Genesis as a "myth" was largely confined to academic settings. In wider settings, I think it was fairly well established, the term "myth" was not found in relation to Genesis. I am not sure what would constitute "a systemic bias towards religion" at Wikipedia. Are there some religions that receive this special treatment more than others at Wikipedia? How does the "systemic bias towards religion" manifest itself at Wikipedia? I genuinely don't see this. I fail to see Wikipedia promoting religious beliefs and I'm not sure what else would constitute a systemic bias towards religion. Bus stop (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest contacting Doug on his talkpage if you want to argue with his rationale (I think that you would be hard-pressed to find someone more informed than Doug on Wikipedia's coverage of religion and archaeology), but I would like to point out that the academic "point of view" (if such a thing can be said to exist) is exactly what is meant by reliable sources in Wikipedia. However, with this article, we defer to sources which unreliably make religious claims as a matter of doctrine (which stands in contrast to the other creation myth articles linked to above and below). That some of these religious sources take issue with the term "myth" owing to their own religious prejudice and lack of education is not a basis for titling an article. We are supposed to make our decisions on the basis of the best sources, not on the basis of a concern that some religious practitioners may have that by pointing out the similarities between their sacred stories and those of others with which they take issue, we are not promoting the "truth" as they know it. Genesis is a myth. If you are offended by that statement, you are not simply not competent enough to know what such a statement actually means. jps (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not "offended"[2] by the application of the term "myth" to "Genesis". My problem with the term "myth" in this use is that it is a characterization of Genesis that has does not enjoy a lot of usage. Furthermore it is a term that has the strong implication of falseness. This falseness would be gratuitous if the term does not enjoy particularly widespread usage. Also I find the argument that certain other articles use "myth" in their title not 100% convincing because all articles are independent and the reasons for titles would naturally vary in accordance with factors particular to each article. Bus stop (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The sources which characterize this bible story as a "creation myth" are in the article already. You were the one who dismissed them as "academic" which, as far as I can tell, is equivalent to saying you don't like reliable sources. If you are troubled that "myth" has the strong implication of "falseness", this is irrelevant to the fact that the story is a myth per the definition of the subject. As I pointed out above, the (lack of) veracity of myths is not generally a topic of interest for mythologists who, as a rule, write the most authoritative and reliable sources on this topic, so your obsession with this implication is really myopic if not downright ignorant. If you think that other articles about creation myths are "independent" of this one, I can only surmise it is because you hold this particular myth in high regard. That indicates to me that you are taking a rather prejudiced position in this argument. jps (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I am precisely not obsessed with either the veracity or the falseness of the story that this article takes as its subject. I am opposed to gratuitously characterizing the story as false if widespread use of the term "myth" is not found in relation to "Genesis". That is advocacy. In my opinion Wikipedia has as a plank of its policy the abhorrence of advocacy. My "obsession"[3], if I have an obsession, is simply in choosing a neutral, balanced, bland, non-equivocal title. In my view the falseness and/or truth of this story is of secondary importance. The story is a commonly arising reference in the humanities. In poetry. In art. We should not be overly concerned with whether it is true or not. In common usage that concern does not express itself. That is reason that we should not be elevating that concern to a position of outsized importance. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Widespread use of the term "myth" is found in relation to Genesis in sources already in the article and, as Alexbrn pointed out above, in other encyclopedias. Myth, as a term, is not one that identifies the falsehood or truthfulness of the subject. Homer's telling of the Trojan War is a myth as it is considered part of the corpus of Greek mythology, but the Trojan War is also something that truly happened. Just because something is identified as a "myth" doesn't make it false. That meaning comes from religious prejudice where, for example, the Catholic Church had to distinguish between its sacred narratives and those of others and identified the myths of the ancients as being "false doctrine". The conflation of "falsehood" and "myth" comes also from Enlightenment considerations not germane to identifying the type of literature. jps (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
We are not here to right great wrongs. I am ignorant of "the Catholic Church [having] to distinguish between its sacred narratives and those of others". The word "myth" has a strong implication of falseness: "His account of the event is pure myth." Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm hearing
  1. a point that only academic sources use "myth", and therefore using it on Wikipedia would amount to "advocacy", which I find somewhat astounding.
  2. that some of the proposals based on academic sources and relating to bias on the part of religious organizations amount to attempts "right great wrongs", whereas an appeal is concurrently being made to a colloquial usage of the term "myth" that has WP:NOR implications in order to defend the truth of the creation myth in Genesis against being perceived to be false as opposed to simply a fictitious man-made work (that probably took form over centuries with various influences).
There seems to be some logical inconsistency and contradiction in those arguments.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
You're the one who is trying to right the great wrongs here of the implications that are not part of the formal definitions of the term myth. Just because you think it is problematic that myth has the implication of "falseness" doesn't mean that we should be beholden to your concerns over that implication since the reliable sources use the term. Additionally, it's really not that much of a problem if people come away form the title thinking that the creation account is technically false since, in the literal sense, it is (though most who actually believe the account, as referenced by AndyTheGrump above, don't take the literal approach seriously). jps (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
"it's really not that much of a problem if people come away form the title thinking that the creation account is technically false"... this sounds like an open admission that you are really only here to push your favored point of view and force a neutral project to share your personal hostility to someone else's canon. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
That this myth is not telling a literal factual account of what happened at the beginning of the world is really not germane to this discussion. If you actually think that this particular creation myth is a literal factual account of the beginning of the world, you probably aren't competent enough to be editing here. If you think Wikipedia is not empowered to explain that such beliefs aren't factual, then you might want to take a gander at the creationism article where this topic is addressed in full. But this belief should not prejudice our discussions here. jps (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, but your opinion that Genesis Creation Narrative is "fictional" is what we call a "point of view". What proves this is that many editors disagree with your opinion, let alone many of our readership will disagree with your opinion, let alone many prominent theologians, interpreters, commentators and scholars have disagreed with your opinion. And no, I'm not going to paste the quotes here for the umpteenth time at this point when you should be able to find them anyway. You need to wake up and smell the coffee that there are differing opinions (povs) on this. If everyone were in agreement, then we could talk as if it were something universally agreed upon. To do so otherwise is dishonest. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Fiction is a literary term, and this account is not "fiction". It is myth. Learn the difference. No editor has yet claimed that this account is factual. I have yet to see such a differing "POV" (no, not even from you), but feel free to provide the diff or make the statement that you believe in a literal six day creation week if you want. jps (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Weren't you just saying you had no problem with readers coming away with the idea that it is fictional because you agree that it is? Are you somehow imagining that everyone is in agreement with you? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you know the difference between "technically false" and "fictional"? Is there a problem if people come away thinking that the literal accounts in this myth are technically false? If so, what are they? Be specific! What do you think is problematic? What parts of the myth do you think are literally true? jps (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
It is a violation of NPOV and blatant bias to try to convince or teach readers what beliefs or creeds are false. But the important thing is that there is significant disagreement among scholars about which verses, if any, qualify as "myth" and what precisely the nebulous word "myth" really implies anyway. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
You haven't demonstrated there is a significant disagreement among reliable sources, but nice attempt to dodge the questions. jps (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
It is gratuitous and it is a contrivance to choose a term that constitutes a characterization when no characterization is called for. It is a "story" or a "narrative". We know that much. There is nothing additional advanced in appending the word "story" or "narrative" to the word "Genesis". This construction serves our need to identify the subject of the article. The use of the word "myth" constitutes "spin". It is uncalled for, it is unnecessary, and it goes against common usage. Bus stop (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
What makes you think no characterization is called for? We have to have a title for the article. That's a characterization. There is a lot additionally gained from identifying this story or narrative as a "creation myth" in that this compound term is the proper and most immediate classification one can give this particular account. There is no "spin". It's just what this story is and the common usage, as identified in the reliable sources, identify it as a creation myth. jps (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
"Myth" has the distinct downside of gratuitously casting negative aspersions on the subject of the article vis-a-vis its veracity. Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
There are no reliable sources which show why categorizing a story as a myth is "casting negative aspersions". This is just your own personal prejudice, as far as I can tell. Further, since we know the account isn't literally true, it's a bit odd to take issue with an interpretation of an article title that would dispute the literal veracity of the account. Since the proper term for a story like this is creation myth (See? We even have a Wikipedia article on the subject.) and creation didn't occur in a literal six days, what is your point about the risks of casting aspersions with respect to "veracity"? jps (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a preoccupation with one dimension of the subject. Aside from its veracity are its references. A reader can conceivably come to this article without a concern over whether it is true or false. Their concern may be to determine the sequence of events detailed in Genesis. Their concerns can be endless. Our title need not focus preternaturally on one dimension, namely its veracity or lack thereof. Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The person with a preoccupation of the "veracity dimension" vis-a-vis calling the subject a "creation myth" is you. It is not those of us who are simply asking that the title reflect the actual thing the story is. People can come here for lots of reasons and they won't be snarled by calling the spade a spade. And, what's more, there is a LOT MORE to a myth than its literal truth or falsehood, as I've been trying to explain to you but you just don't seem to be getting. jps (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
i think that the comments focusing on "falseness" are a distraction from the actually opposed categorically operative qualities pertaining to the subject matter, and that is revelation versus fiction. The assertion that the term "myth" implies "falseness" and is therefore not neutral (because the myth is "true"? a part of a "cannon"?) seems to embody an underlying religious pov seeking to support the notion that the creation myth in Genesis is actually revelation authored by a supernatural being as opposed to a text authored by human beings. And once again, this relates to epistemology and the role of the encyclopedia in promoting learning/knowledge. Wikipedia is not supposed to recognize a religious pov over the mainstream academic pov.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose As has been noted by several others, the key difference here is that all of the other examples are popularly considered myths in the modern era. I do not know of any modern adherent to any of those creation myths.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Nothing has changed since the last (ten) time(s). By far the most commonly used phrase to describe this topic is "Genesis creation story". Google Scholar, which gives results that are not too dissimilar to Google Books, gives us: "Genesis creation story"/"Genesis creation narrative"/"Genesis creation myth" at 808/262/148. The "myth" version doesn't even rate in the top two. We should depend on 1. the preponderance of reliable scholarly sources and 2. principle of least surprise. "Story" is still the way to go here, since it's neutrally descriptive and used by the most sources. First Light (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't get this WP:GHITS obsession. Just read the reliable sources provided above and tell me the academic consensus. How can you argue this isn't a creation myth when it clearly is and our own article says it is? jps (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
And I don't get this obsession with using your own original opinion for the title, and what "our own article says it is".[unreliable source] JSTOR gives even less credibility to your opinion. It shows a meager 10 results for "Genesis creation myth", 68 for "Genesis creation story" and 15 for "Genesis creation narrative". Looking through those results, they include some of the most reliable academic sources available, including some inter-religious academic journals, sociology, anthropology, etc. We use reliable sources for article titles: "use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." (WP:Article title). (note to closing admin: I don't believe in creation "science" at all, and I edit many more scientific articles (mostly plant species) than religion articles. I'm not the defender of Christianity that some editors here are attacking with their very broad shotgun. Most conservative Christians would condemn me for my beliefs. I am a true believer in Reliable Sources.) First Light (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
There are a bunch of sources in the #Sources section which indicate that this story is a creation myth. There is also the article itself. So in satisfying the reliable source criteria, which reliable sources are you using that indicate this opening myth is not a myth? I anxiously await a demonstration of your use of reliable sources and exquisite scholarship to complement your religious pluralism. P.S. Stop WP:SOURCECOUNTING. It gives away your incompetence in these matters. jps (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I never said it wasn't a myth, and you know that (see Herring, Red). That's why I addressed my latest comment to the closing admin, because you are choosing to ignore what I'm saying. Reliable sources predominately use the term "Genesis creation story" widely over "Genesis creation narrative" (I don't like the "narrative" term either, to be honest - this should be at "story"), and far more than the "Genesis creation myth" phrasing. It's a myth, it's a narrative, it's a story, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that reliable sources use the 'myth' phrase far less than the 'story' phrase and less than the 'narrative' phrase. Last I checked, we use what the predominance of reliable sources use to describe a subject for its title here. (note to closing admin: I make the same argument quite frequently in plant article moves to support the scientific name for a title, when it is used in the predominance of reliable sources, which is nearly all the time: i.e., using the terminology in reliable sources is the only rational and scientific approach.) First Light (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Except that your claim that the "reliable sources use the term Genesis creation story" is not based on actual scholarship. It's based on WP:SOURCECOUNTING which is not good research at all. Sorry, you just don't seem competent enough to understand that you aren't actually doing real research into this issue. jps (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Science Apologist (jps) has been shown for literally years that there are numerous scholarly sources explicitly claiming that Genesis 1 does not fit the category of "myth", however he claims for himself the exclusive authority to overrule any sources speaking for the pov (while at the same time demanding them) so he can continue to pretend the pov does not exist and his pov has a monopoly. It's a fool's game. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
That sources you think show that the first story in Genesis is not a creation myth have been duly impeached is not that remarkable. That you continue to insist we defer to them is. There are fool's games being played here, but if you were being honest you would point out that you just think that we shouldn't call it a myth because people who believe in it don't like that word applied to the creation myth in which they believe. That is the heart and soul of your argument. And it's not an argument that works at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Reliable sources make all the arguments, I don't need to make them. And that's not their argument. And your mischaracterization of these sources is verging on prevarication. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Which is to say that you don't have any more reliable sources for us to read on the subject, isn't it? I'm sorry they're no good, but maybe you could convince the academics in the field to come over to your side and be convinced by those great wrongs you are so upset about. jps (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
e/c Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel. I'll leave it to the closing admin to decide, as I have trust in their impartiality and rationality. I've done the research and it's abundantly clear that most scholarly neutral academic writers use the "story" phrase by far most commonly. The burden of proof here is to show otherwise, and the evidence just isn't out there. Yes, it's a myth, a legend, a fable, a story, a narrative, etc., all those things, but "story" is the one most commonly used, "narrative" second, and "myth" last among the contenders. If this move request were for "Genesis creation story" I would !vote a thousand times yes. First Light (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
As an aside, I hope that the meaning of my username, and the long-standing explanation on my user page which actually supports a completely different creation account, is not lost on people. First Light (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
If you've actually done any research, you haven't shown any evidence of such. All you are doing is WP:SOURCECOUNTING which is not research and certainly you can come to no conclusions on the basis of that little bit of poorly executed bibliometry. jps (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm more than happy to let the closing admin determine how much weight to give to the predominant usage of the terms "...story" and "...narrative" over "...myth" in the most reliable academic journals. First Light (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Tsk, tsk. That's WP:SOURCECOUNTING. if you are going to do actual research, you could check out the actual #Sources. jps (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Words like "myth" are loaded and inherently POV, "narrative" is neutral. Frankly, "myth" is probably not the best title for most of those other articles, either, but that's a different issue. Montanabw(talk) 06:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
"Inherently"? You do realize that we base our argument on research and scholarship, not on ideas that come into your head, right? jps (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
jps—simple dictionary definitions should be considered part of "research".
Story: "either true or fictitious".
Narrative: "whether true or fictitious"
Myth: "without a determinable basis of fact"
The word "myth" in a dictionary.com definition does not even allow for the possibility of such an entity being true. You are probably going to argue that in a technical, academic usage, the word "myth" can allow for "truth". But common usage does not imply that. Furthermore the use of the term "myth" is not necessary because the subject of the article can be identified without the characterization of it as a myth. Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
You're using dictionary.com as your ace in the hole? Why not read some #Sources? Do some actual research? Then write me an essay on the distinguishing features of a creation myth. And explain why the first story in Genesis is not a creation myth. Then you'll have my attention. Your obsession with the truth value of this myth is irrelevant and silly (since we all agree it's not literally true and we also all agree that that's not the major characteristics of myth as studied by mythologists -- watch some goddamned Joseph Campbell or something). jps (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Ace in the hole? This is the English Wikipedia. The language has definitions in a dictionary. I can be completely uneducated and quite ignorant to boot. I can properly still avail myself of a dictionary and participate in erudite discussions. It just so happens the word "myth" has certain shades of meaning that appeal to some in this discussion and do not appeal to others in this discussion. Surely the common meanings of the terms under discussion have some bearing on the title that we choose for this article. Bus stop (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
No, the common meanings are irrelevant. What is relevant is the scholarship seen in our best #Sources. Reread WP:RS. Academic sources are the ones we use. Not dictionary.com syntheses by people concerned about the "common meanings" of parts of full terms. Yes, a creation myth is a full compound term. Look it up. jps (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
the common meanings are irrelevant—but see WP:JARGON. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Points to consider

Seeing that a brief list and claim that Wikipedia does not use "creation myth" was made above, I did a little checking and found the following. Note that, in light of the results described below, it would seem that the dedicated article Creation myth is in need of attention, but there is this list article List of creation myths, which includes the following, for example.

  1. Japanese creation myth
  2. Yoruba creation myth
  3. Hopi creation myth
  4. Genesis creation myth
  5. Ancient Egyptian creation myths
  6. Pelasgian creation myth
  7. Sumerian creation myth

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a little dishonest, don't you think? There is no article called Yoruba creation myth -- that's a piped link. Nor is there an article called Hopi creation myth -- that's a redirect. Most articles on creation stories don't contain the words "creation myth," and most don't even contain that phrase in the article body. -- 101.119.29.11 (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
That is a diversionary distraction aiming to emphasize trivialities against the big picture, which is demonstrated by the multiplicity of articles with the name "~ creation myth" on the List article, from which I pulled a few, the Japanese being one with which I am familiar from my research.
Though I don't know (or careto know) the difference between a "piped link" and a "redirect", it is easy enough to see that you can also arrive at articles with "creation myth" in the title via this page Category:Creation_myths, where you will find
  1. Mandé creation myth
  2. Ainu creation myth
  3. Mesoamerican creation myths
  4. Fon creation myth
  5. Serer creation myth
  6. Tungusic creation myth
for example. So what is your point in insinuating that I was being dishonest? --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
None of these form part of any modern religious doctrine. Some of the examples given are actually re-directs. TFD (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
And we should favor modern religions over older ones because... ? --BDD (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Because since when have we ever treated current ideas the same as discarded ones? You are turning the very basic premises of an encyclopedia on their head. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
This is like arguing that novels that are no longer being read are somehow different than novels still being read. jps (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
A novel is something clearly intended as fiction, your bias is that sacred texts of selected religions are to be placed in the same category, but it really should have no place on wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
My point was that just because something is read/believed today versus not read/not believed is irrelevant to Wikipedia. There are no guidelines or policies which argue alternatively. jps (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
What about WP:NPOV? You seem to be throwing that one right out the window! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Above, I actually quoted the policy which states explicitly that it's the neutral point of view with respect to reliable sources that matters. I seem to recall you refusing to provide reliable sources. You wish that policy was actually "Significant points of view" (which you call, SPOV), but it's not. jps (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Because I have trotted out the sources so many times it is getting ridiculous, and I feel sorry for you if you cannot find them. As I said I have no intention of dragging it out that far as long as this semi-disruptive move request has little chance of getting a consensus anyway. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
None of the sources you have "trotted out" have turned out to be the least bit reliable in supporting your contention. jps (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
You like just putting "no" in your edit summaries a lot dontcha big guy? Don't kirk out baby! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
And you are arguing that the Genesis Creation Narrative (known since at least the 1st century) is covered by WP:RECENT! You really are too much! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
If Christianity, Judaism, and the other religions that believe in this account went extinct tomorrow, you would suddenly be okay with this article being titled, "Genesis creation myth", right? jps (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
They aren't going extinct tomorrow, so that question has no bearing on logic or reality. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I take by your refusal to answer the question that you've understood the point. jps (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Not really too clear on your point, or I wouldn't have said it has no bearing on logic or reality... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be saying that the existence of believers in this myth is what make calling it a "myth" a problem. If there were no believers in this myth then you wouldn't have a problem, as you seem to have no problem with the characterization of the Sumerian creation myth as a myth, for example. jps (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but what;s your point? Wild hypotheticals like "if there were no believers in this myth" usually aren't too helpful as logical propositions because there is no limit to the number of hypotheticals one could come up with. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
My point is that for all your talk about "countering systemic bias" you are actually biased towards living people. It's just sorta funny and sad at the same time. jps (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
It's more about the recent "popularity" of the Genesis story, relatively speaking. --BDD (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Well that's kinda harebrained, since the "recent" popularity stretches back at least 2000 years, I think we can say this one's not covered by WP:RECENT! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
RECENT has to be a relative condition. Considering that human beings have been around for either 2 million or 100,000 years depending on how you demarcate "human", 2000 years is a relatively recent event. And creation myths may indeed extend by means of oral traditions many thousands of years into the past. Get some perspective on your own bias, why don't you? jps (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Me? Why, I don't believe I've ever seen anyone ever try to stretch RECENT quite that far before! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
And as a matter of fact, the idea considering it "myth" appears much more RECENT-ly than the view that it is not a myth, try Karl Marx and Voltaire - and when they used the term it was in a rhetorical polemical sense clearly intended to weaken the position of Christianity, hardly a "neutral" application! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
You miss the point. If anything is a myth, this story is. And yet, you oppose that designation on the basis of the fact that there are still living people who believe in it. They aren't dead enough for you. They were born too RECENT-ly. jps (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
@TFD Japanese creation myth is certainly a part of an active and widely followed modern religion, Shinto. The text of the Kojiki was put into writing in the early 8th century, a couple hundred years after the Japanese acquired written language. The notion of doctrine is another matter.
Only the Yoruba creation myth is a redirect, but there are at least ten other "creation myths" on that list.
@Til What does it matter whether the intention was to disseminate a story as a (quasi) historical narrative or as fictive account 2,000 years ago when academic RS today tell us that it is a text that belongs to the literary genre of sacred stories called "myths"?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:11, 20:31 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Do a substantial number of Japanese take the Japanese creation narrative seriously, and has there been any academic or other objection to the characterization of it as a "myth"? In either case "Japanese creation narrative" would be more neutral there too. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, yes, the myths are taken seriously as they establish the legitimacy of the imperial line. The emperor of Japan is the high priest of Shinto. There is not a connection to a doctrine called "Creationism" however, for example, so the frames of reference are different. And the text of the Kojiki is somewhat arcane, not as commonly referred to as the Bible. The textual traditions are quite different, though I haven't thought about a formal comparison or read one.
There are numerous superhuman and supernatural aspects to the myths, along with human like traits in the deities. There is a quasi-historical narrative about the first emperor an his exploits. The term myth is fairly commonly used in Japanese 神話 to describe the tales. While there are some linear plot lines, there are fragmented aspects that leave room for interpretation, and one could see a certain amount of allegorical dimensions at work as well.
I think that there is relatively less supernatural dimensions to Genesis, but am not sure about that, having not read it in a very long time (if ever in its entirety). The Japanese myths offer a loosely interrelated collection of tales that convey teachings. The bible may contains more linear narratives, which have a greater propensity to produce doctrine. Japanese religion in general is of a different gestalt than monotheism, and it is basically a syncretic system between Buddhism and Shinto.
So "narrative" might not be a good fit in the Japanese case, unless the scope were constrained, because there are too many interrelated but separate threads that form the fabric.
Anyway, the point is that Japanese mythology and Genesis may be comparable on some level and not on others. Some of it probably shares more in common with ancient Greek mythology and the like. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Note that Japan, Yoruba, Hopi, Ancient Egypt and Sumer are not texts. Genesis is a book. "Hebrew creation myth" or "Judeo-Christian creation myth" would be parallel to the other titles. "Genesis creation myth" is not. This article is about a specific text: the early sections of Genesis describing the creation of the world and interpretations of this text throughout history. It is not about a creation myth per se. Srnec (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The book in which the Japanese creation myth is found is called the Kojiki. I'm not sure I follow what distinction is being made by "per se". There is a rich exegetical history in Japan on the Kojiki as well.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The Kojiki does not a sacred text in Shinto. It is more comparable to the Apocrypha, the writings of the apostolic fathers, the Santa Claus myth, or the History of the Kings of Britain, which was written by a cleric. TFD (talk) 08:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
What? That is an incorrect, completely speculative statement. What is that statement based on? Some poorly written, poorly researched, poorly sourced passage in a Wikipedia article peripherally related to Shinto, like Religion_in_Japan#Shinto, for instance? Or maybe this poorly written, unsourced section Shinto#Creation_myth?
Moreover, what criteria did you apply for assessing the sacred? Eve the lead of the Wikipedia article states

Sacred means ,revered(emphasis added) due to association with holiness. Holiness, or sanctity, is in general the state of being holy (perceived by religious individuals as associated with the divine) or sacred (considered worthy of spiritual respect or devotion; or inspiring awe or reverence among believers in a given set of spiritual ideas)(emphasis added). In other contexts, "objects are often considered 'holy' or 'sacred' if used for spiritual purposes", such as the worship or service of gods.

The texts in question are rather complicated, and for anyone that is not culturally literate and hasn't done the requisite research, the material is not rendered accessible on the basis of the brief Wikipedia article Kojiki. I'll just point out that the part of that text that is the correlative to this article is the first third of the book, which the Wikipedia article describes as

The Kamitsumaki("Volume of the Age of the Gods")...is focused on the deities of creation and the births of various deities of the kamiyo period, or Age of the Gods. The Kamitsumaki also outlines the myths concerning the foundation of Japan. It describes how Ninigi-no-Mikoto, grandson of Amaterasu and great-grandfather of Emperor Jimmu, descended from heaven to Takachihonomine in Kyūshū and became the progenitor of the Japanese imperial line.

In other words, this section of the book is pure myth, a narrative of pre-history. The second and third books are semi-historical texts. Even a brief online search turns up websites stating the following

Only two central texts are revered by every Shinto denomination: the Kojiki(emphasis added) and the Nihon Shoki. These two texts nearly contain the entire mythological background of the Shinto religion while detailing the early history of the Japanese islands.[4]

I suggest that you produce an RS supporting that statement or strike through your comment.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support as so many times before. It is true that a committed group of Christian apologists can prevent this from going through, but that does not obviate the need to point out the obvious, namely that this article should be named according to the larger conventions regarding other creation myths & mainstream academic use, per WP:NPOV. Eusebeus (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Eusebeus—you refer to the "larger conventions"[5] but you are seeking the narrower "convention". In some settings, yes, reference is made to Genesis as a "creation myth". This is an academic setting and the terminology is being employed for teaching purposes. Non-scientific and highly fantastical accounts of the beginning of the world are all called "creation myths". But in the wider non-academic world one would not likely encounter the terminology "Genesis creation myth". The body of the article is a perfectly adequate place to explore other terminology used. The purpose of a title is the identification of subject matter. A title does not have as its primary purpose the promoting of a narrow reference. Were there no other words available to us we would use the term "myth". But we have terms such as "story" and "narrative". These are widely used terms that serve adequately for identifying the subject of the article. There is no "committed group of Christian apologists"[6]. That is laughable. You also mention "WP:NPOV"[7]. The words "story" and "narrative" are more "neutral" than "myth". There are true stories. Are there true myths? Identifying the subject matter does not necessarily translate into declaring it false. That point can be made in the body of an article. The article should remain as "narrative" or be changed to "story". But "myth" in the title would represent a misuse of Wikipedia to promote a pet cause. Bus stop (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
You make your arguments not based on sources or academic scholarship but on your own prejudice. Very poor argumentation. jps (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose; the word "myth" in common English usage means that something is untrue, and that's not a decision we should make in article titles. If there's a problem with other titles, then those other titles should be moved. Red Slash 01:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no agreement that this fits the category of myth, and it has been demonstrated numerous times that there is specific disagreement, including among scholars, academics etc. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Aside from this being a complete red herring, it's also not true that you have demonstrated that there are any reliable sources in disagreement with this categorization. jps (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support That should be an obvious no brainer. It's a myth and there no reason not to call a spade a spade.--McSly (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Whether some think it technically correct to call it a myth, in the minds of most readers, labeling something a myth is a judgment call meaning that the account is false. They will perceive WP as promoting an anti-theistic agenda, when WP should be seen as providing a neutral POV. The question is not what do scholars think, but how is this going to be understood by the readers. To scholars, the word myth may have no negative connotation, but to the general reader it does have negative connotation. The general reader considers Santa Clause a myth. The Easter Bunny a myth. The a flat Earth a myth. Vampires are myths. Ghosts are myths. The Tooth Fairy is a myth. All of these things are known to be false and so they are myths. This use of myth may not be the technical use by professors, but it is the common use in the general public who are the major readers of WP. It doesn't matter if Genesis is true or false, but calling it a myth will be seeing by the public as POV pushing by WP. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, again. Convention on-wiki is "creation myth" for other religions, and we should not show preference for one religion over others. The correct technical designation is "creation myth" according to academic literature, and WP:RNPOV says we should not avoid it for fear of confusion or offense. Finally, "Genesis creation myth" conveys an accurate scope for the article (we're discussing the "creation myth", not just a "narrative"; if we were discussing the "narrative" only, this article would be a copy of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.) Besides which, a "creation narrative" isn't a thing, it's a label we made up in order to appease a crowd intent on violating RNPOV. This is unlikely to pass, particularly with editors !voting that there is some anti-Christian bias on wikipedia, or that this proposal has something to do with hostility to Christmas. Sheesh! As a result, I expect many editors who would have commented in support will avoid wasting their time hashing this out again, and I'm right there with them.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Srnec. I didn't expect to see any new arguments in this discussion, but I don't believe this argument has been presented before. The article is not about the Hebrew creation myth, it's about the creation narrative specifically in the Book of Genesis. There is a subtle but important distinction. StAnselm (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I firmly support this. Where the sources do not converge on consensus I think that we should strive toward consistency for usability. As for the objection above that word myth has connotations of falseness, while true is only an aesthetic judgement. The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that it isn't, strictly speaking a true story. Why shouldn't we use verbage that reflects this?--Adam in MO Talk 10:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Some sources to consider (two of them already mentioned above) (my emphases throughout).

... under the influence of personalist and process philosophers, some thinkers regard the Genesis creation myth as God's bringing order out of a primordial chaos with his world. ... One cannot argue that a myth, such as the one in Genesis, is better interpreted by a finite-creationist theory than by a creation ex nihilo theory without an assessment of the dialectical claims of the theories.

Biblical narrative as a whole ... ranges along a spectrum from the unmistakably mythical - the opening creation story (1:1-2:4a), for example - to what is surely a type of history-the genealogical lists or tólĕdót.

The myth of creation is the symbolic narrative of the beginning of the world as understood by a particular community. The later doctrines of creation are interpretations of this myth in light of the subsequent history and needs of the community. Thus, for example, all theology and speculation concerning creation in the Christian community are based on the myth of creation in the biblical book of Genesis

.

Genesis is the first book of the five. It contains the creation myth that forms the basis of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

We must not shy away from the word "myth" in our treatment of Genesis. Of itself, myth can be a vehide of either truth or error. Through myth a people expresses through images and symbolic narrative certain insights into reality. Myth expresses in drama what metaphysics and theology attempt to express conceptually

In the Judeo-Christian tradition of our Western culture, the first two chapters of Genesis propose an original creation from a condition "without form and void" by a supernatural God. This creation myth has contributed two important attitudes to our culture.

Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

    • Comment on sources - Science Apologist has stated that any and all sources objecting to the point of view treating Genesis as a "myth" are a priori illegitimate because he defined them as "fundamentalist". However, this ignores the reality that in fact, a good many of these sources are not fundamentalists but include plenty of more "secular" prominent Bible critics, scholars, commentators, interpreters and theologians. There are so many views, no one ever has a monopoly on any Bible interpretation, not even Marx's "Bible = myth" interpretation has the monopoly it wishes to pretend it has in the real world. The number of scholars arguing that Genesis seems different from a "myth" or arguing that the term "myth" cannot be redefined to include this text when it doesn't share the features of a myth, is too vast to reproduce here yet again, but for those who haven't seen it, you may find several of them sprinkled throughout my lengthy page of quotes about the "myth" question, here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Alex asked you to name the three best sources defending your position. You have thus far declined and instead refer to a subpage you created that goes all over the map including good and bad sources, some of which may be construed as somewhat sympathetic to your position and many which are absolutely unrelated to this discussion. You have thus far refused to offer one, let alone three reliable sources showing that there is actually an academic conflict over the designation of the Genesis creation myth as a creation myth. I must assume you've got nothing except your own hyperbolic prejudice. jps (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
So I show you there do exist plenty of sources, but you can still pretend "I haven't seen them" because they weren't presented according to your rules that you gave me to follow? Science Apologist you have been acting as judge, jury and executioner of all sources that disagree with you, no matter who they are, for years. We wikipedians can report on what conflicting viewpoints are found in sources but you want to polemically engage in your own rebuttals to arguments of published scholars when your viewpoint is different. You demand sources demonstrating that anyone thinks Genesis is not a myth, while stating beforehand that if they say this they are disqualified. (Known among logicians as "setting the bar impossibly high"). I'm not going to get into that game for literally the umpteenth time when editors have settled this so many times and it does not appear consensus has changed. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Show us the three best sources you have supporting the current name. Go ahead. No one is stopping you. jps (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Reset

Support. In view of the above weight of sourcing, in my understanding WP's policies require that this article be renamed to "Genesis creation myth" so that it follows the reliable sources. Most of the user contributions in this long thread above do not engage with sources or (properly) with WP norms; in determining consensus those contributions should be discounted. Of course, if there are good sources complicating the "myth" categorization, let us see them! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Searching Google Books shows that most reliable sources use "Genesis creation story" (24,500 results) or "Genesis creation narrative" (8,280 results). Comparatively few use "Genesis creation myth" (3,820 results). Some sources use "creation myth" to refer to hypothetical oral tradition(s) on which the written Genesis narrative might be based. However, that would be a topic for a different article. -- 101.119.29.11 (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Your Google hits result tell us nothing about what RS says about the topic at hand (see WP:GNUM for some explanation). I have given very strong RS support for the categorization of the myth as, well, a "myth". What would be needed to counter that is some RS which specifically considers the question and rules out the myth categorization. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:GNUM doesn't apply -- those are books results. They are all reliable sources. Similarly JSTOR gives 20 journal hits for "Genesis creation narrative," 96 for "Genesis creation story," but only 15 for "Genesis creation myth." WP:COMMONNAME clearly rules out the suggested title change. Cherry-picking a handful of sources doesn't change that. -- 101.119.28.140 (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Google Books take in all sorts of rubbish such as self-published material, Wikipedia articles, etc. It tells us little about RS. A search engine result is dumb - we need to assess and use high-quality sources (and not just in JSTOR, which has poor reference work coverage). In your search results for example 6 of the "hits" for "Genesis creation narrative" are just book reviews. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed WP:SOURCECOUNTING is the refuge of scoundrels. jps (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that we have available to us words like "story" and "narrative", the word "myth" would contribute almost nothing of value to the title of this article. The value of the word "myth"—and I do not deny the value of the word "myth" to this article—belongs in the body of this article. Its placement in the title would constitute a gratuitous characterization of the topic of this article. There would be very little justification for placing a spin on the subject of the article by using a word such as "myth" in the title of the article. Bus stop (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a terrible argument. If it belongs in the article it belongs in the title. We do not censor the titles on the basis of concerns over "gratuitous characterization"; whatever that's supposed to mean. jps (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Characterizations of subjects of articles do not belong in titles of articles unless they are necessary to identify the subject matter of the article. We already have the subject matter of this article identified. There is presently a title on this article that identifies the subject matter in this article. There are no shortcomings in that regard, concerning the terms "story" or "narrative". These terms neither characterize the subject matter of the article as being true or false. The shortcomings of "myth" as a term in the title of this article are obvious: A "story" can be either true or fictitious. A "narrative" can be either true or fictitious. But a "myth" cannot be true. This is a "spin", or a characterization, that our article title should avoid. We have available to us terms that do not have this drawback, and they should be used. "Story" or "narrative" are preferable to "myth". Bus stop (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
You admit this is the Genesis creation myth. But you don't want us to use Wikipedia policy on commonnames and titles and instead want to invent your own naming convention. This is not a policy-based argument, it's an argument based on personal prejudice. jps (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
jps —there isn't only one possible title for this article. This article would probably be called "Genesis creation myth" if the terms "story" and "narrative" did not exist. You are single-mindedly arguing for the title that puts a spin on the article. "Myth" only conveys falseness. "Stories" can be either true or fictitious. "Narratives" can be either true or fictitious. Bus stop (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The word "myth" does not "only [convey] falseness". If you continue to believe that, you are simply refusing to learn or do any of the scholarship being laid out for you. In short, you are exhibiting an incompetence that in a rational environment would exclude you from having a say in encyclopedia editing. jps (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's important to note that even in the above 5 sources, only one actually uses the title "Genesis creation myth", while the others simply note the text's inclusion in the genre of "creation myth" or point out its mythological character. Since we are urged to consider WP:TITLE in making this decision, I would like to point out that the current title is completely compliant with the guidelines. There are others that would also work (perhaps even better), such as "Genesis creation story" and "Genesis creation account". Any of those three titles would be easily recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. HokieRNB 14:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment: I am quite surprised at the level of desperation exhibited by Science Apologist et al. They have openly stated that 1) it doesn't matter if most editors oppose the opinion calling it a myth 2) it doesn't matter if most readers oppose the opinion calling it a myth 3) it also doesn't matter if half the sources oppose the opinion calling it a myth. All of the above are overruled because Science Apologist (a renowned expert on Fringe who has already played the "FRINGE" card here by declaring all Nicene Churches to be "fringe") know the truth, he and his supporters know it better than anyone else, and they are openly here for the purpose of TEACHING YOU that Genesis is a myth because they say it is. They have gone further out on a limb with their "spin" this time than I have ever seen, even seriously attempting to argue that Christian viewpoints expressed 2000 years ago and still maintained today should be discounted and ignored as "recent" and treated like the dormant Greek religion rather than any other currently practised religion. Clearly they have a bias in their heads that Christianity, above any other religion, MUST BE TREATED AS ILLEGITIMATE and attacked no matter what the cost. All signs pointing at a higher level of arbitration being in order and if this religious persecution on articles pertaining to Christian doctrine even ought to be tolerated here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see where anyone has attempted to treat Christianity as illegitimate, but Christian doctrine is something that, while followers of the Christian religion may believe to be an unquestionable representation of truth, is something that we treat in an encyclopedic manner here, like that of any other religion. Josephus pointed to a contest between the Hellenic and Judaic worldviews in his day, and apparently some residual dimension of that has not been adequately resolved to date. Simply put, Christianity is part of a prophetic tradition whereas the encyclopedia as such hails from the academic tradition of ancient Greece.
It is not the case that we do not take the doctrines of Christianity as an object of sustained scholarly inquiry and academic treatment on Wikipedia. Others have already indicated numerous relevant policies that not only support that position, but compel it.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Support. As there is not yet a separate article on the creation myth of Judaism and Christianity it would appear that this is in fact the article discussing the creation myth advocated in pre-modern forms of those religions. The term "creation myth" is from an academic standpoint an acceptable neutral term to describe non-scientific explanations for the creation of our world, a fact which is of course acknowledged in the first sentence of the article. As noted already, all other creation myths are described as such in the title of their respective articles, including those creation myths which are still believed by some today, so I don't advocate we leave this one as the sole exception to the rule.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Further comment: Sources in Biblical studies which can include Genesis include multiple approaches to study of the area including myth. However using myth, in both the article title (and actually the first line) is exclusive. A narrative may include myth but myth excludes a "true" narrative. Whether any of us believes the Genesis story to be true is not the issue; literature on the topic will include the genesis story as part of some belief systems and that must be included per the mainstream sources. Our article title must tell the reader that all RS views are part of the understanding of the biblical Genesis story. Although I haven't seen the sources I'd assume that there are RS on the science or lack of science, behind the Genesis story. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC))
You haven't read the sources, but are convinced that there are sources which indicate that the story isn't a myth? Is that about right? jps (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are some sources which indicate "not myth":

  • Coats, George W. (1983) Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature pp 47-48
  • Hamilton, Victor P. (1990) The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 pp 56-59
  • Merrill, Eugene H., Mark F. Rooker, Michael A. Grisanti (2011) The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament pp 174-178

As such, and based on results such as this n-gram, and the persistent current use of the term "myth" in popular media, and consistent with each of the previous 10 times this issue has come up, I strongly OPPOSE this move. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can you indicate exactly where these sources argue in favor of the title? The first one argues for "Genesis creation report" which is a weird form if I've ever seen one, the second I have no access to, and the third explicitly states, that critical scholars, "exclusively categorize these chapters as myth". So hmm... Doesn't seem like you did your homework unless the second source is some sort of brilliant scholarship that somehow illustrates how this is a narrative but not a myth. Also, NGRAMS is just about the dumbest form of WP:SOURCECOUNTING I can imagine for this discussion, especially at the ludicrously low rates you are quoting which are statistically indistinguishable. This kind of shoddy, brain-dead scholarship in comments like this make me lament the state of editorial discourse at this website. It's an embarrassment of illiteracy. jps (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
While these sources don't necessarily argue explicitly for the current name, they most definitely argue against the alternative using the word "myth". To spell it out for those who are too brain-dead to actually read the sources, Merrill et al argue that despite the fact that "...critical or nonevangelical scholars almost exclusively categorize these chapters as myth...", among evangelicals no such consensus exists. If you look at the footnotes, you'll see a list of evangelical scholars who do not regard them as myth. Hamilton writes that "...scholars disagree about the definition of the word... this proliferation of definitions of myth is the reason why one scholar would look at Gen. 1-11 and say it is free of myth, while another scholar would look at Gen. 1-11 and pronounce it entirely mythical." Coats states that "...it is nonetheless clear that the unit is no longer myth. The generic character of parallel mythology is not reproduced in the narrative itself." The point here is that this article cannot ignorantly claim that all scholarship universally accepts Genesis 1-2 as myth. This is not to say that the article cannot say "creation myth". However, it must include all significant viewpoints, in a neutral way. You don't have to agree with the evangelical viewpoint to acknowledge its existence. Furthermore, while n-grams may not be a convincing tool in and of themselves, that doesn't render them of no value whatsoever. In fact, Wikipedia's own article states that "n-gram models have been shown to be extremely effective in modeling language data". If you consider all the variables in this equation, there is no compelling argument in favor of "Genesis creation myth". It's not used with any more frequency than other similar titles, it's not less ambiguous, it's not even that common in Wikipedia article titles. I count exactly 11 - Serer creation myth, Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Mesoamerican creation myths, Sumerian creation myth, Chinese creation myth, Mandé creation myth, Ainu creation myth, Japanese creation myth, Fon creation myth, Tungusic creation myth, and Kaluli creation myth - each one named specifically for the people group or geographic area. Renaming this article would be totally inconsistent with this pattern. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Evangelicals are piss-poor scholars. They explicitly eschew the very sort of scholarship that we are trying to do here at Wikipedia. To be swayed by their prejudice would be equivalent to arguing that we shouldn't have articles on evolution (they also aren't too fond of that). The point is that the source in question identifies that the reliable sources identify this story as a myth, and that is what we use at Wikipedia. That's in the first line of NPOV. Sure the evangelical viewpoint exists, but their concerns are placed not in a serious way. That is, their ideas are answered explicitly by the scholarship in the same way their distrust of evolution is simply not something that we can accommodate rationally at this encyclopedia. Just because they mistakenly think a myth implies falsehood doesn't mean that we are bound to respect that mistaken-ness. That's the point of the source you list, actually, so it's rather ironic that you hang your hat on it. This story is a creation myth. Plain labeling of what it is should prevail. There's nothing about this story that distinguishes it from the other myths you list. The pattern you identify is completely irrelevant since these myths are not collated into a canonical text. So if you cannot argue in favor of the existing title, then opposing the move must be on the basis of your dislike of the proposed title. And yet you don't have any rational basis for that opposition. I call shenanigans. This isn't scholarship, this is rhetorical flourish without substance. jps (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
And there is the rub: blatant anti-evangelical bias. By the way, evangelicals are not the ones who mistakenly think a myth implies falsehood. In fact, each source I cited acknowledges that the academic use of the term "myth" carries no such implication. It's the entire rest of the non-academic world. Just search the Google news for the word "myth" on any given day and you will find pages and pages of results equating the word "myth" with "false belief". I've been outspoken in the past about my dislike of either title. I had no qualms with the original titles before all these goofy move discussions. Either "Creation in Genesis" or "Creation according to Genesis" works fine for me. I'm not specifically opposed to "Genesis creation account" or "Genesis creation story" either. They are both more common, just as unambiguous, and completely neutral. The only title that I'm specifically opposed to in this discussion is "Genesis creation myth" for the precise reasons that I have stated on numerous occasions. And speaking of brain-dead comments, did you really think I wouldn't notice that you contradict your own argument by first saying "there's nothing about this story that distinguishes it from the other myths...." and then in the very next sentence you identify exactly what it is that distinguishes it - "...these myths are not collated into a canonical text."
Huh? You think that if you put a myth in a book it is no longer a myth? And you also think that the evangelicals aren't objecting to the term "myth" because it implies "falsehood"? Finally, you contend you don't like myth on the basis of how it is written about in "other pages" not on this subject. This seems to me that you are concerned over how people will mistakenly perceive a title. That's really not a policy-based complaint. It's a complaint based on personal prejudice, as this seems to be the general way the argument against a plain titling is going. jps (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No, not what I said. I haven't seen sources recently on lack of scientific proof for Genesis.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC))

Then why don't you do some research and get back to us? jps (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Ahhh. Red herrings. I stand by my position on the title of the article (see statement above), have no desire to trade snarks with you jps, have an academic background that includes awareness of the Bible as literature, another way to look at Genesis, and am sure someone will come along and discuss the science especially the lack of it behind Genesis and probably already has. I have seen those sources, not recently, and they are as I've said one of many ways to discuss Genesis, and like myth, not the only way. Please feel free to have the last word. I've said what I have to say, made my points, and opposed your suggested change. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC))
The type of literature this story is is a creation myth, so treating it as literature certainly is a good way to go. I'm not sure you can treat it any other way and as you haven't offered any other way I'll be sure to indicate that your !vote above is based on this story being a myth but you just opposing my suggested change because, why? The Maharishi told you to? Thanks. jps (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a simplistic and likely inaccurate view of myth and of literature, and the intersection of the two as you describe here is more complex than what you are suggesting. Myth is probably pre literature while both myth and literature can tell stories. In that way myth and literature are subsets of story or narrative so the article should have the more general title and the article the space to develop what that title means.
My oppose above is based on exactly what I said there, and any attempt by you to change or adjust my meaning will be considered disruptive and a blatant POV attempt to move this discussion in your favour, hardly neutral. or honest. As for being told what to to post by someone from beyond the grave, well, that's pretty funny. Thanks for the laugh.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC))
I thought you were going to let me have the last word? Well, no matter. You still haven't provided a single reliable source in favor of your argument. Do you have a source which argues that this first story in Genesis is not a creation myth? You are putting on pretenses of being some sort of literate in these matters, but seeing how incompetent you have been in other areas of this website makes me wonder whether you actually can do any meaningful research. Or do you just like to make pronouncements without scholarship as a primary means of argument at Wikipedia? jps (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
If the argument against the use of "myth" in the title is to be based solely on the objection of Evangelical "scholars", there would seem to be an implicit admission that they are in the minority and in a manner such that they are capable of being identified as the sole minority. That would seem to call for a description of their specific objection to the use of "myth" to be included in the body of the article, but not to exclude the descriptive characterization used by all (other) academic scholars.
Moreover, there is a substantial body of scholarship on the type of interpretation Evangelicals apply to the Bible, Biblical literalism.

A literal Biblical interpretation is associated with the fundamentalist and evangelical hermeneutical approach to scripture—the historical-grammatical method—and is used extensively by Fundamentalist Christians[disambiguation needed],[3] in contrast to the historical-critical method of liberal Christians. The essence of this approach focuses upon the author's intent as the primary meaning of the text.

It should be noted that though that article only discusses only the Judeo-Christian tradition, the concept of literalism itself can be seen operating in other traditions as well, generally in the context of nativist movements. I can provide a concrete example--in conjunction with the related discussion above--in the form of the Japanese nativism movement. That movement contributed to the production of what is referred to as a "cult of the emperor" under a system referred to as State Shinto through a literalist interpretation of Shinto myths. The result of the political use of that doctrine compelled the US administration after WWII to bring about this Humanity Declaration.
Though Shinto is not a prophetic tradition, proponents of the political nativism movement in Japan were practicing a form of literalism that could be called 'Kojiki literalism'. An encyclopedia should not pay homage to any form of literalism by granting it editorial authority over the titles of articles related to the texts in respect of which it lays some claim hermeneutical priority on the basis of religious beliefs.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

With respect to question of "Systemic bias", are editors familiar with Christian mythology?

It has increasingly become apparent that there is a disconnect here between editors calling for "myth" to be used consistently with respect to sacred stories associated with any religion that academic scholars classify in the literary genre "myth", and those objected to the term on the basis that it implies some negative meaning that would violate WP:NPOV.

The article wikilinked in the title discusses the history of "myth" vis-a-vis the development of Christianity, and there are some pertinent points that would seem to deserve being addressed in the context of this discussion. Though I haven't read the entire article, this, in particular, first paragraph of the section Christian_mythology#Christian_attitudes_toward_myth caught my attention

In ancient Greek, muthos, from which the English word "myth" derives, meant "story, narrative." By the time of Christianity, muthos had started to take on the connotations of "fable, fiction, lie".[1][2] Early Christians contrasted their sacred stories with "myths", by which they meant false and pagan stories.

There are three sources cited for those sentences, which seem to characterize an antipathy toward the concept of myth. Moreover, the next paragraph opens with

Within contemporary Christianity, the appropriateness of describing Christian narratives as “myth” is a matter of disagreement. George Every claims that the existence of "myths in the Bible would now be admitted by nearly everyone", including "probably all Roman Catholics and a majority of Protestants".[2] As examples of Biblical myths, Every cites the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2(my emphasis)...

so this book is another source that definitively uses the term "myth".--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, there have been a number of move requests to other titles, and none of them have gained consensus either. The problem with Creation (Christianity) is that (a) this article is about the account in Genesis, (b) this is in the Hebrew Bible and applies equally to Judaism, and (c) the title you suggest would be more akin to Creationism. StAnselm (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't have time to get involved here deeper, so leave it as that both names seem no good names: why switch from one to the other? Is "Genesis" also "Genesis" in Judaism? If yes, Creation (Genesis) might work. Are Jewish and Christian sources similar enough to be combined in one article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't believe the Earth was created in seven days, but I still take it highly offensive to call something biblical a "myth". Many people have different opinions and ideas on how the Earth was created, and I respect that. However, calling something a "myth" that I still find highly important and symbolic from others I take as an attack on my religion that is Christianity, and many Christians still consider the Genesis creation literally. The word myth means to me false which I find that as a matter of perspective. Also, changing the article would be considered an attack on Judaism and Islam. I highly recommend not changing something that the top two religions take very important: see Christianity and Islam. -- ♣Jerm♣729  —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
    Shorter Jerm: I don't believe my religion's creation story is factual, my feelings just very hurt by the implication that it's not true. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    You did not read my statement properly. I still find it symbolic which is another form of truth. Also, I did not just represent Christianity but Islam and Judaism as well. Claiming something to be a "myth" is your point of view, while others if not 2.3 billion Christians, 1.6 billion Muslims, and 14 million Jews say otherwise about Genesis. If I changed the article: Big Bang to Big Bang "myth"...Do you think people would't feel offended about that change especially coming from a Christian? I know people would feel offended especially towards scientist who'v worked so hard to prove it fact. Some questions will never be answered properly. It's just a matter of perspective. -- ♣Jerm♣729  —Preceding undated comment added 01:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    Calling Genesis a creation myth isn't a point of view, it's a plain statement of fact. If you perceive people stating the plain truth as attacking your faith, your belief system has a problem.
    And the Big Bang is theory, not myth. Scientific facts indicate that earth began not on day 3, but in year 9.2 billion. But that fact only threatens the faith of fundamentalists who are too attached to the idea of their holy books being 100% unvarnished truth. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
It sounds like you have unfortunately learned nothing or made no effort to learn the actual viewpoints that appear in sources, where it is frequently pointed out that the first days could not have been Earth days before the Earth was set in its position relative to the Sun, but that they could have been intended to suggest alternating indefinite periods of light and darkness that could have been billions of years in length. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
It sounds like you are unaware that in the Genesis story, the Earth was created before the Sun. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
How could there be an Earth day of 24 hours until there was both an earth and a sun and they were in their relative positions, Robin? Anyway this is what the sources argue, as usual it is a wikipedian who doesnt like the sources' argument and comes up with rebuttals to argue, editor vs. sources Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Ask the ancient Hebrews, it's their myth. Of course, nowadays, scientifically minded people accept that the Sun came first, not the Earth. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • User:Jerm729 If you admit that the meaning is "symbolic" then you basically accede to the scholarly assessment of the text as a literary work that belongs to the genre "myth"; furthermore, that puts you in with the non-literalist camp, so to speak.
It's not clear to me how people of such an opinion can see the use of myth--here, in its formal sense--as an attack on religion or faith. One can believe in the symbolic meaning of the text without taking it as a verbatim authoritative account in the literal sense.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the current name is perfectly find, and the result of compromise. One point of view pushing their idea of a title is a move away from a stable consensus and will only encourage more name change debates. So we should leave it where it is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
What a stupid argument. To paraphrase, we should never argue against past consensus, and even if consensus changes, we should ignore it because it will create a lot of work. LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is nothing stupid about supporting a past consensus. The amount of time being wasted here on changing one word in a title is stunning. "Narrative" is a neutral word. "Myth" is ordinary usage is not. My dictionary's second definition is "a widely held but false belief or idea." And it seems to me that is precisely the connotation the advocates of this name change wish to convey in the title. Hardly NPOV. And if you expect me to believe that the neutral meaning of myth is the only meaning intended, then why the vehemence in pushing to change a consensus from one neutral, and scholarly, word to another? --agr (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
How does "treat ALL religions the same" appeal to you? HiLo48 (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
You still haven't come up with anything like a satisfactory logical argument for singling out a living religion and treating it the same as a group of dead ones, instead of the other living ones. Reality makes a distinction between living religions and dead ones, and so obviously will wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
That is pure systemic bias. I'm convinced that you have no idea what it is, and are a major part of it, and don't see a problem. ALL religions must be treated the same. That's about as logical as it gets. HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
And I'm convinced you have an anti-Christian bias and should no be allowed to edit in this area. Your main gist seems to be a constant, relentless attempt to paint Christianity as moribund or already dead. This is what we call "bias" and "pushing yoiur own g.d. opinion on everyone else" because it does not correspond with reality on the planet we live on. Wikipedia is not a propaganda vehicle for a special few activists to portray the world as you'd like or wish it to be. It is open-source, it is accessible to everyone in the world with internet, and a neutral encyclopedia reflects the world as it really is now, carefully explaining what is believed today, and what is not believed today. "Treat all religion the same - the living ones the same as the dead ones" will not fly here, it is utterly devoid of logic, it is pushing your rather biased way of looking at things and I am somewhat incredulous that you are on this project and don't know what "encylopedias" have done for centuries and will continue to do. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
It's ironic that you think the liveliness or lack of liveliness of Christianity is the thing which should determine the title of this article. Go ahead and get WP:LIVELINESS or WP:Significant Point of View a policy before trying to make this argument. Otherwise, it's just on the basis of your personal beliefs about how Wikipedia should conduct (non-)scholarship. jps (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
In this case, both sides are "supporting a past consensus". We had a consensus for "Genesis creation myth" for years before we changed it to "Genesis creation narrative". Consensus can be a fickle thing. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
No, one side is supporting the current consensus. Consensus is not intended to be fickle on Wikipedia and we need strong reasons to change it. I support treating all traditions with respect. If you feel certain belief systems are being treated unfairly, I'm all for changing their titles so something more neutral, perhaps "Creation according to X tradition". "Creation myth" is a technical term in scholarship and its intended neutral meaning should be clarified whenever it is used. This is easy to do in the body of an article, but hard in the title. And we do not expect total uniformity in article titles here. Would the myth supporters favor changing Big Bang theory to Big Bang creation myth or maybe Steady State theory to Steady State creation myth, since the later theory is now discredited?--agr (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
We don't know what the "current consensus" is, but will determine it by this process we are participating in. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:CCC "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive." Perhaps you can point out what unconsidered arguments or circumstances are being raised here?--agr (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll give it a shot. The group of people arguing in opposition to the move, on the whole, are either 1) religious fanatics, or 2) basing their argument on shoddy or completely absent scholarship. jps (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE - Perhaps it would be helpful to remember that "consensus" to move this the first time to the myth title was not particularly convincing (with only a handful of editors commenting, and even then the admin's move decision seemed rather random given the almost equal support on both sides), nor was it terribly long-lived. That move was followed by a series of much more involved discussions, which resulted in the article being moved back within a few months to where it is now, and where it has remained, for several years. "Past consensus" does matter, and it was never clear that there was a strong consensus for "myth". Ἀλήθεια 14:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Past consensus, if based on religious fanaticism and ignorance, certainly does not matter. WP:CCC. jps (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support to remove systematic bias. The word "myth" does not carry the concept of falsehood as implied, but as per MW [8], "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", exactly what us being said here. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
You're blinding yourself to the half you don't want to see, when a word has double or conflicting definitions we call that word "ambiguous" and the history of the words usage clearly shows that it has usually been a pejorative or polemic term, not a neutral one, and that is how it is widely understood regardless of what definition selected "academics" are trying to foist on us - Marx and Voltaire etc. used it to describe the Christian doctrines in a sense that was purely 100% polemical and pejorative as do some editors and readers of wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
It is not our place to correct previous wrongs of the world. The academic use of myth carries no hint of falseness but accurately describes an historical concept that is a fundamental belief of a group. Just because one possible secondary definition of myth does imply falseness doesn't mean we should the most accurate word that describes the article. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
The first definition in the MW link you cited above is "an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true." That is the primary meaning in modern English. See, e.g. the popular TV program Mythbusters. You won't get many viewers for Narrative busters. When we have a choice of words, one neutral, and one with double meaning, we should choose the word our non-academic audience understands clearly. --agr (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Er, the first definition at MW is the one I cited. And Myth busters is a good we example of that academic definition in practice - they take a concept of pop culture some believe is true and set out to validate or bust it by setting up mostly objective experiments without imposing the bias of the truthfulness of the myth to start. They set out without expecting the myth to be true not, thus meeting the academic definition. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
When I click on your link I get two sections. The first definition in the first section is the pejorative one I quoted. The second section starts with the definition you quoted and also includes "an unfounded or false notion" and "a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence". You are picking the definition you like out of several that are given. I don't think that is appropriate. I have yet to find a dictionary that does not include a pejorative meaning for myth. (The TV program is called Mythbusters not Myth testers. The presumption is that they are false.) I also checked Samuel Johnson's dictionary from 1755. http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/?page_id=7070&i=1345 He does not have an entry for the word "myth," but he defines "mythology" as "System of fables; explication of the fabulous history of the heathen world." He defines "fable" http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/?page_id=7070&i=757 as "1. A feigned story intended to enforce some moral precept. 2. A fiction in general 3. A vitious [sic] or foolish fiction. 4. The series or contexture of events which constitute a poem epick or dramatick. 5. A lye." So the word myth has always had a pejorative meaning. The supposed neutral scholarly meaning is a more recent invention.--agr (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
If you have sources that indicate the first story in Genesis is not a creation myth, why don't you provide them? We've provided the #Sources indicating that it is, and others who have tried to claim there was "controversy" over this have provided sources that are either additionally supportive(!) of the designation of the story as a creation myth or are peculiarly bizarre (including one that thinks we should call it the "Genesis creation report"). So, where's your scholarship? jps (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
jps—there is nothing ambiguous about the present title. Why would you want to characterize the story (in the title) as a "myth"? Shouldn't such characterization be found in the body of the article? Aside from the term "story" in the title or the term "narrative" in the title, there are other possible titles that are preferable to "Genesis creation myth". Titles such as "Creation in Genesis" or "Creation according to Genesis" would seem to me to be clearly preferable to "Genesis creation myth" because these titles do not characterize the subject of the article in any way. I find the title "Genesis creation myth" to be a contrivance which places a "spin" in the title. I think this is completely uncalled for because titles such as "Creation in Genesis" and "Creation according to Genesis" are entirely unambiguous. They identify the subject matter of the article without characterizing that subject matter in any way. Bus stop (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Why do you think this is a matter of ambiguity? This is a matter of identity. The story is a creation myth. We have no reason not to be clear in our identification of it as such similar to other creation myths. That's what the article is about. Concern over the feelings of those who won't like the word is no a policy-based objection. jps (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
You say "Concern over the feelings of those who won't like the word is no a policy-based objection." But the potential for hurt "feelings" is not what makes the information imparted by "myth" gratuitous. The word "myth" is gratuitous because the subject of this article would already be unambiguously identified by titles such as "Creation in Genesis" or "Creation according to Genesis". The employment of the word "myth" is unnecessary for the purpose of a title for this article. This is material that certainly does belong in the text of the article, but is merely gratuitous in the title of the article. Bus stop (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
It is the creation myth in Genesis. That is not gratuitous at all. There are no sources which indicate it is gratuitous. jps (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
jps—you say "It is the creation myth in Genesis." It is also the "story" in Genesis—is it not? And it is also the "narrative" in Genesis—is it not? Why should we choose the title that you are suggesting? Bus stop (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
It has all the literary characteristics of a myth. It is more than a story or a narrative. It is a myth. jps (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
You say "It has all the literary characteristics of a myth". That is entirely superfluous to a title for this article. We have available to us titles such as "Creation in Genesis" and "Creation according to Genesis". These titles identify the subject of this article adequately. The information that you wish to add to the title—that it "has all the literary characteristics of a myth"—constitutes entirely unnecessary material for a title for this article. Bus stop (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
We call things by what they precisely are. This is the creation myth found in Genesis. That's simply what it is. Creation myth is the proper scholarly term for such a tale. jps (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
You say "We call things by what they precisely are." No, we title articles appropriately. Within the body of the article "We call things by what they precisely are." We are discussing the title for this article. Once we adequately identify the subject of the article we need add no more information. Your argument is for the addition of nonessential information. Titles need not contain nonessential information. Bus stop (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Please base your argument on policy rather than your own claims of propriety or what is or is not essential. Here's my policy argument from WP:TITLES: "the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles,..." (we've listed similar titles that use creation myth but none that use "creation story") "...precisely identifies the subject,..." (the proper and most precise way to identify this subject is as a creation myth) "...and is short,..." ("myth" is certainly shorter than "narrative" or even "story") "...natural,..." (the most "natural" discussions of this particular myth are done in the context of reliable sources which all identify this story as a creation myth and no one is going to be confused by "Genesis creation myth") "...and recognizable." (straightforwardly true). Your turn! jps (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
jps—we have adequate titles for this article. I think the onus is on you to tell us why "Genesis creation myth" is a preferable title to either "Creation in Genesis" or "Creation according to Genesis". Bus stop (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Unlike what I just outlined, that's not a policy-based argument. That's "it's good enough for me". I've shown why it's not good enough according to WP:TITLES which is the actual policy. jps (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The issue is that (1) Christianity should be treated the same way as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Native American religions: see Nasadiya Sukta, Popol Vuh, Diné Bahaneʼ, Aggañña Sutta, etc. which do not use the "Creation myth" term; and (2) we should follow the reliable sources. Checking books and journals on Google Scholar, "Genesis creation narrative" has 262 hits, "Genesis creation story" has 808 hits (e.g. "The Genesis Creation Story: Its Literary Structure," J.B. Doukhan, Andrews University Press, 1978), but "Genesis creation myth" has only 148 hits. -- 101.119.28.58 (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Those articles do use the term. If we were to write a specific article on the creation myth contained in the Popol Vuh, for example, we could easily call it the Popol Vuh creation myth. I think you have missed the point that this article is about the creation myth in Genesis. If you wanted to call it Creation myth in Genesis that would be fine too, but Genesis creation myth is simpler. jps (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I am only seeing the one section at my link so I don't know what is up with that. Oxford's first definition is the academic one as well. The point is that the primary definition of myth is absolutely not derogatory. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
The point is that myth has two meanings, one clearly derogatory, and we have other words to chose from that are entirely neutral. See my quotes from Johnson's 1755 dictionary above, where his definition is derogatory. As to which meaning is primary in everyday English usage now, I leave that to any impartial observer fluent in the the language.--agr (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the word "myth" has many different meanings. That's not relevant to the fact that this article is about a creation myth. jps (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
If it's not relevant, why did you spend so much effort arguing that "myth" is not derogatory? Wikipedia article titles are supposed to be neutral and should not appear to push a point of view by using a term that has one meaning in academia and another in everyday usage, as "myth" does.--agr (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
"Myth" need not necessarily be derogatory, but I cannot help the meaning that people may mistakenly associate with an academic term such as creation myth, even though it is the most correct term. Some people might not like the term Big Bang which may have unsavory sexual meaning, but that is the title we use in spite of their discomfort. WP:NOTCENSORED. jps (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The issue is neutrality, not unintended sexual innuendo. And, yes, you can help prevent mistaken meanings by accepting an unambiguously neutral word in the title like narrative, which is also used in the scholarly literature.--agr (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Neutrality references reliable sources. We have looked at the #Sources and, in spite of your claims to the contrary, they all unambiguously identify this particular creation myth as a creation myth. jps (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
That's an outright lie. You refuse to acknowledge the existence of any source that doesn't share your point of view opinion. You only acknowledge the existence of those sources that share your point of view opinion. This is your litmus test, most editors find this practice repugnant. The countless sources from prominent scholars, theologians, commentators and interpreters explicitly stating that "Genesis is NOT the same as a creation myth, and there is considerable disagreement about this in scholarship" are RIGHT THERE IN YOUR FACE and your only response repeated over and over is "ICANTHEARTHAT so it doesn't count, I am the jury, judge AND executioner of the sources" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
You haven't provided any reliable sources to back up your contentions. You keep claiming they exist but either cannot or will not point to them. jps (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
(arbitrary break)
  • Support again - not sure why this one belife would be any different from all the other deity stories. ...Horus believer :-) . -- Moxy (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Note. A number of editors have suggested that "creation myth" is the appropriate scholarly term. This is false, actually. The Oxford Companion to World Mythology suggests that the Genesis creation account contains two distinct creation myths, so that "creation myth" is not really appropriate for describing the account as a whole. -- 101.119.29.30 (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Genesis is by definition a "creation myth" in Standard English usage. Wikipedia should not permit religiocentric biases such as titling with "creation narrative" for only the Bible and with "creation myth" for other scriptures and cultures. Consider what the Talk:Muhammad/FAQ says about WP policy regarding Muslims who are offended by depictions of Muhammad:

Wikipedia is not bound by any religious prohibitions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. … Wikipedia does not single out Islam in this. There is content that may be equally offensive to other religious people, such as the 1868 photograph shown at Bahá'u'lláh (offensive to adherents of the Bahá'í Faith), or the account of Scientology's "secret doctrine" at Xenu (offensive to adherents of Scientology), or the account at Timeline of human evolution (offensive to adherents of Young Earth creationism). Submitting to all these various sensitivities would make writing a neutral encyclopedia impossible.

Not censored for the benefit of any particular group—including adherents of Biblical inerrancy, Biblical literalism, Biblical infallibility, Biblical mythology denialists, etc. Keahapana (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The weight of reliable sources, as well as the fact that WP titles so many other creation story articles using the word "myth" and that article text prominently identifies it as such in the lede (again, based on RS), support this proposal. I see no compelling reason why this title should not be brought in line with the titles of other creation myths. ╠╣uw [talk] 03:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. After having read most of this huge wall of text, it seems that to me those in favor of moving the article back have a much stronger argument, both grounded in Wikipedia policy and in the argument of consistency with other creation myths. Treating Christianity differently than other religions and beliefs just because it has more followers or is contemporary is not the right idea. Also, WP should be based on reliable sources. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Per the sources which weigh towards myth both for this title and for other similar creation myths, hence complying with wikipedias wp:COMMON policy. Also, to all the opposers, check out the Muhammad page and its talk page for objections to his images. Pass a Method talk 16:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Aren't you comparing apples and oranges? Images in the body of an article are under consideration in one instance. In the other instance, we are discussing which elements of information should be included in an article's title. The argument for the inclusion of content in an article is different from the argument for the inclusion of elements of information in an article's title. Material omitted from the body of an article can deprive a reader of information. In this case we are debating whether the term "creation myth" should be in the title. The reader is not deprived of anything if the term is omitted in the title. The term's usage and meaning will be brought to the reader's attention in the body of the article. I argue that this is gratuitous information that need not be in the article's title. Bus stop (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The apparent difference between a "myth" and a "narrative" according to some you people is just the number of individuals that believe in the myth. This is a form of argumentum ad populum. Changing it is not a violation of WP:NPOV. It is universally accepted by the scientific community that humanity was "created" through the process of evolution by natural selection. Considering this a violation of WP:NPOV is like saying that if Wikipedia says Noah's flood never occurred, that is also a violation of WP:NPOV. I believe the neutral point of view stuff should be limited to political or biographical articles, but not anything that goes against science. Would it be "biased" if said that the flat earth society is a farce? This is the same thing. It's a myth. An encyclopedia should not be expected to give credence to universally rejected fundamentalist beliefs; it is supposed to reflect reality. Also, I'm sure there's Native Americans that believe in their tribes' particular creation myths. Why don't their myths get called "narratives"? Is it because Christians significantly out number them? That's completely arbitrary. The same principle ought to be applied universally. JDiala (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
"Myth" and "narrative" are not needed in the title. We have possible titles such as "Creation in Genesis" or "Creation according to Genesis". The purpose of a title is to identify the subject matter of an article. There is ample space in the body of this article to provide information pertaining to the name and the concept of a "creation myth". This is an element of information that the title of this article does not require. The inclusion of this element of information in its title can be called gratuitous. Bus stop (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Why? HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
An excellent piece of lateral thinking, but not a new suggestion. Either Creation according to Genesis or Creation in Genesis as a title would avoid all the problems as far as I can see, but they are both previous titles of this page so someone didn't like them... surprise, surprise. And we'd need to invoke WP:IAR I think, but that's what it's there for. I'm not sure that, at this late stage of a polarised debate, enough people will listen to such a sensible idea, unfortunately. Creation in Genesis is the better of the two IMO, but either was a good idea. Most good ideas don't work, but hang in there. Andrewa (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Obviously there's a case for both titles to be considered POV, the heat of the above discussion and the fact that this is a perennial proposal speak for that. But narrative is relatively neutral, so I'd go with that. Disclosure of COI: I am a Christian, but as I regard atheism and agnosticism as at least equally POV, I've decided to buy in anyway, and I'm trying to be as NPOV as possible. Andrewa (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
How did you determine that "narrative" is "relatively neutral", but conclude by implication that "creation myth" is not? On what reliable sources did you base your claim? jps (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It has been pointed out that the WP:COMMONNAME appears to be "~story", so you are off the mark with that proposition regarding the average reader.
Meanwhile, "narrative" is not acceptable, unless one takes the myth to be something akin to "the word of [G]od". The fictional story of creation recounted in Genesis is of man-made origin, and not a 'narrative' of verifiable historical events. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Ubikwit: ""narrative" is not acceptable, unless one takes the myth to be something akin to "the word of [G]od"."[citation needed.] You are, yet again, openly admitting that your ultimate goal here is to endorse the point of view that Genesis is "fictional" based on a minority of opinonated Bible scholars who insist that it is. This pov-pushing is what is unacceptable. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
We certainly can't say that Genesis is true. We can't even imply it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
To date, no one has yet been able to demonstrate how an impartial, perfectly neutral word like "narrative" makes any implications whatsoever. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Since other articles of this type are named "myth" or "story", "narrative" carries strong connotations of differentiation. It also sounds much more factual than either "myth" or "story".Rwenonah (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
"Narrative" doesn't imply any factuality or non-factuality at all to me. If you had any kind of sources contending that the term "narrative" implies factuality, that might put a different complexion on it, however. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The bulk of sources reflect our unacceptable systemic bias. Constantly demanding sources is seeking preference for the favoured religion(s) of the bulk of our editors, and that's unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no necessity for a title for this article with the term "myth" in it. A title such as "Genesis creation myth" amounts to gratuitous offense. One would have to have a tin ear not to recognize that. Bus stop (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Bullshit. You can take offence at that if your god says you should, but to imply that any religion is more likely to be true than any other is something I find quite offensive. HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48—you say "You can take offence at that if your god says you should". Does anyone's god say that they should take offense at something? I wasn't aware of that. Bus stop (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, there has to be some explanation of why some conservative religious folk seem to have a long list of words they find offensive. What do you think it is? HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
"Narrative n. 1. A story of events, experiences or the like, whether true or fictitious. 2. A book, literary work, etc., containing such a story. …" Random House Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language--agr (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, Bus Stop, Wikipedia is not censored, so rejecting "myth" on that basis is demonstrating bias toward the group that might be offended. Rwenonah (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
If we used NOTCENSORED as a rationale for why we should go out of our way to offend and choose a more pejorative and less neutral term, then there would be lots of other articles that people could try to move to pejorative and offensive titles, using precisely the same argument - i.e. because we are not "censored" and are showing them some undue 'bias' by not using their more pejorative and offensive name. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Myth is not a pejorative ; it is the academic name for the genre of this article's topic. The key point is that no one else is offended by having their creation myths referred to as what they are, so treating Christianity, Judaism and Islam differently is bias. After all, if myth is a pejorative, why does the article refer to Genesis as it repeatedly? Are you saying the article is "offensive" and full of "pejoratives"? Rwenonah (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Once you have been shown sources explicitly calling the word "pejorative", then it's not "me" saying it any more, it is now the sources that are stating that. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I must have missed that source. Care to share it again? HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
There's piles of sources making the case that "myth" / "mythology" is pejorative. In fact those who actually crack the books open in the mythology field should know, that a great deal of the discussion focuses on the confusion about what various scholars intend the word to signify precisely, and how no two seem to include the same details in the package of what "myth" supposedly entails... and of course, whether they mean the term in a sense implying "fiction", in a sense that is "pejorative", or both. I don't want to overburden the page with more quotes, but here is just one sufficient to prove the point. "...The great diversity of the scholarly works on myth shows that, although being one of the most studied subjects in the history of the social sciences and the humanities, it has not yet been entirely understood. At the crux of this confusion is the simple and straightforward question of whether or not the storyline content of myth has any basis in historical events and processes. A disdainful view of myth is easily demonstrated by a simple citation analysis of the editorial use of the term 'myth'... in the generally well-respected journals Nature and Science during the ten-year publication period of 1996 through 2005... The few times that 'myth' is used are virtually always in a pejorative sense, such as "time to bury misleading myth"..." -- Myth and Geology, 2007, p. 10, session held at the 32nd International Geological Congress in Florence, Italy, in August 2004. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Irrelevant, really, since all the other articles of this type are referred to as either "example creation myth" or "example creation story" (and even those articles predominantly use myth). Whether or not myth is pejorative (some people certainly take it as if it is), if all the other articles of this type are referred to as myths then we should not treat this one differently or we risk appearing biased. Rwenonah (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest checking the Wikipiedia article on narrative.

Narratives can be organized in a number of thematic and/or formal/stylistic categories: non-fiction
(e.g. New Journalism, creative non-fiction, biographies, and historiography);
fictionalized accounts of historical events (e.g. anecdotes, myths, and legends);
and fiction proper (i.e. literature in prose, such as short stories and novels, and sometimes in poetry and drama
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Just so I'm following... the genre of narrative contains myths. No one says this piece of text isn't narrative. Lots of people (academic and otherwise) say it isn't myth. More to the point, fewer academic sources refer to it as myth than any of the other three terms (story, account, and narrative). And of the 100+ articles in the "creation myth" category, more than 90% use a title that does not follow the convention "xx creation myth". What's the argument about? HokieRNB 23:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Til, You proved "myth" was pejorative by showing us a quote where it was preceded by a pejorative adjective ("misleading"). That it needed that adjective actually demonstrates that the word on its own is not pejorative. And I still cannot accept that some creation tales can be called myths and one of them, the one we are pushed towards because of our systemic bias, must be called a narrative. That is definitely not a balanced position for Wikipedia to take. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
So what, you're saying if I show you one such quote you can nitpick it and pick it apart and disqualify it? How many more would you like to see? There are so many from serious mythologists, that if you are going to look until you find some fault to rebut each one, one at a time, this could indeed take a while... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
@Hokie I would have to say that it appears you are not following the logic of the argument, as first of all, "narrative" is not a genre, but a mode of communicating information that is found across genre. Furthermore, all myths contain narratives, but not all narratives contain myth.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Ubikwit.Rwenonah (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is neutral, well recognized, etc. The proposed title is POV. Many people believe this narrative, and to label it "myth" is provocative. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the respective definitions, which Ubikwit shows above. Narrative is a means of communicating information, not a genre in itself. All myths are narratives, but not all narratives are myth. As for "provocative", please read Wp:NOTCENSORED. And, please also read whole discussions before commenting. It helps reduce repetition. Rwenonah (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I understand well enough that atheist scientists often are tempted into advocacy WP:NOTADVOCACY, to sneakily assert their position that creationism is myth, where myth means fiction, and where narrative means scholarly worthy. The suggested title will be offensive to too many of the readership, the truth of the argument notwithstanding. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Rwenonah et al. are trying to play wikipedians for fools with this repeated appeal to "NOTCENSORED" to trump NPOV as if it means we have to go out of our way to NOT be impartial and offend people wherever we can because we are NOTCENSORED, so alway take the less neutral of two options because we are NOTCENSORED. The truth is they want to be able to give themselves (not all wikipedians obviously, just themselves) the AUTHORITY to declare which parts of which texts are "myth" and which aren't, according to whatever definition they decide they like at the moment. Unlike the last couple of go-arounds with this debate, their new tactic this time seems to be openly admitting that "myth" is appropriate because Genesis=fiction, and fiction=myth. We knew that's how they saw it all along the first time years ago. First they declare Genesis = fiction (because THEY say so - doesn't matter what anyone else thinks). Next they will feel so empowered they will set their sights on the Quran, Book of Mormon, Baghavad Gita and Lotus Sutra etc. and try to officially declare which parts of that they think are "myth" and need to be declared "fiction" according to THEM. Instead of the original basic idea wikipedia was founded on, treating all major competing world views in the world impartially - it becomes the antithesis. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia policy that enables us to define "major" religions. All religions must be treated the same. That "many" people believe something that cannot be justified by sources Wikipedia recognises as reliable cannot change our editing policy. That belief cannot be treated any differently from the creation story according to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We don't base our content on who might be offended. Many Muslims are offended by our inclusion of images of Muhammad. Does that bother you? And SmokeyJoe, I really don't think my position in in the least bit sneaky. I don't want it to be. I'm happy to explain every single bit of it for you. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Who's advocating anything? And who brought atheist scientists into the discussion? Whether or not atheist scientists sneakily assert their position on creationism is irrelevant to this discussion, which is about one word in an article's title. Moreover, as I've said many, many, many times, myth does not mean fiction. Although your point about narrative implying scholarly worth does provide yet another good reason not to include it, since no other creation myth articles are titled "narrative".
As for you, TiI, I"d request that you keep the inaccurate blanket accusations to a minimum. No one says NOTCENSORED should trump NPOV. The only times I've mentioned NOTCENSORED are in response to your bleatings that myth would "offend people". As for your seemingly telepathic knowledge of my (et al.) supposed goals, I would again urge you to keep things in perspective. This is about one word in an article's title. Your paranoid theories about the anti-religious crusade I and a group of other random people scattered around the globe have supposedly colluded to create on Wikipedia, of all things, is rather entertaining in a sad way. I'll note that no one has yet said "Genesis=fiction" or made that claim. In fact, I am beginning to resent your continued accusations of anti-religions bias, which are, of course, entirely false. The fact is, though, "creation myth" is more consistent, more precise, and supported by the sources. It doesn't make a judgement about the factuality of Genesis, it is simply the academic name for the subject. Rwenonah (talk)
You have consistently argued that Christian viewpoints are irrelevant and illegitimate on articles about the Christian Bible. Statements arguing that Genesis is fictional and therefore a "myth" may be found easily all over the place for anyone who reads this page, so no real need to respond to a prevarication. So with this being your argument, I really don't care what YOU resent. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
So you'll continue to accuse me without reason. Since all of my comments clearly demonstrate I have never made claims involving truth/lack of truth, I don't really care either. Please note myth does not mean fictional, though, so "fictional and therefore a myth" is entirely illogical. A myth is not necessarily fiction. Rwenonah (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
To argue that this single WP title cannot use the standard collocation "creation myth" is egregious censorship. As quoted above in support of the move:

Wikipedia is not bound by any religious prohibitions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. … Wikipedia does not single out Islam in this. There is content that may be equally offensive to other religious people, such as the 1868 photograph shown at Bahá'u'lláh (offensive to adherents of the Bahá'í Faith), or the account of Scientology's "secret doctrine" at Xenu (offensive to adherents of Scientology), or the account at Timeline of human evolution (offensive to adherents of Young Earth creationism). Submitting to all these various sensitivities would make writing a neutral encyclopedia impossible. (Talk:Muhammad/FAQ)

Keahapana (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Keahapana—please explain to me how we engage in "egregious censorship"[9]? Aren't we merely refraining from gratuitous characterization? "Myth" is a characterization of Genesis. This is gratuitous. What does gratuitous mean? It means unnecessary. We can title this article "Creation in Genesis" or "Creation according to Genesis". There is no characterization of Genesis in either of those titles. Bus stop (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
There is an article in Scientific American magazine's August 2013 edition called "The 5 Myths of Terrorism". Note that the word "myth" means false, untrue, an incorrect understanding. Such an implication in the title of this Wikipedia article would be gratuitous. It would be uncalled for. The title of this Wikipedia article need not imply that its subject matter is false or untrue or incorrect in any way. The word "myth" has applicability within this article, but that applicability should be brought out in the body of our article. Bus stop (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
One thing I still don't understand yet is how can "Genesis creation myth" actually be called the "standard collocation", when as has been demonstrated repeatedly, several times the number of academic sources go with "Genesis creation narrative"? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Are those "academic" sources written by Christian believers? Were those "academic" sources written in a context of having to discuss all religions as we do, and hence treat them all equally? HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
If and when you ever get your dream policy saying "Christian sources are not to be considered on Christian-related articles for it is COI and therefore only non-Christian sources are admissible for consideration on Christian topics", then and only then it might be worth our while to do a witch hunt on the sources, and toss out all those sources Your Eminence deems heretical or possibly "tainted" by heretical sympathies. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Come off the grass. We need independent sources. A Muslim telling us the Koran is true is hardly useful, is it? HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
For purposes of NPOV, The Muslim belief that the Qur'an is true is considered a valid opinion for them to hold, and we report on it neutrally and impartially. According to WP:RS, the Muslim source stating the Qur'an is true, may be used and considered reliable for establishing the fact that this is a fairly widespread viewpoint help by millions and we must treat it impartially and not use clearly polemical rhetoric like "myth" to describe it, regardless of what private point of view we hold of it, which should be (and used to be in the old days of wp) checked at the door. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The fine point you don't seem to be getting, but I'm sure anyone familiar with RS policy can explain further, is that we're not talking about using such a source to argue in wikipedia's voice that the Quran IS true - any more than any of the sources in question for this article are being used to establish that the controversy has been settled, quite the opposite, they show the truth of the matter that there is controversy over the genre of Genesis and the matter is NOT settled among scholars or academics. (Using the definition of those words as found in ENGLISH dictionaries, not some specially concocted litmus test definition of 'academic' or 'scholar'...) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The only controversy here is that some of us disagree with the completely unacceptable view of conservative Christians editors who think that, because our systemic bias means there's plenty of them represented here, their religion should be granted some sort of special treatment. I won't ever agree to that. HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
What more would it possibly take to demonstrate that is NOT "the only controversy here"??? It should have been sufficiently demonstrated to any reasonable person that this matter is fraught with controversy from beginning to end. The fact that you are predisposed to discount any source not fully backing your POV is immaterial. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I won't discount any genuinely independent, reliable source, no matter what it says. But that independence must be clearly demonstrated. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, what kind of source would it take to satisfy you? As we have seen the preponderance of sources call it "Genesis creation narrative", precisely because the preponderance of scholars choose to appear even-handed and unbiased in their use of language and avoid bias words with polemic histories to describe Genesis like "myth". Yet it seems you wish to reject this preponderance of sources, because if any source doesn't call Genesis a "myth" it obviously must not be "independent". And yet you tell me "Get off the grass"...! Are you SERIOUS? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting me again. HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

To suggest that we can't use Christian sources because we need "independent" sources belies a complete misunderstanding of what "independent" means. When it comes to sources, no one should be "independent" of a POV. We should expect that most sources will be "dependent" on their POV, and that for an article on one of the fundamental texts for Christianity, many (if not most) sources will come from a Christian POV. Our job is to take what those sources say and report on them in a neutral way. e.g. "Christian tradition holds that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible." The word "independent" indicates that the sources are editorially, legally, and financially independent. Any book from a major publishing company with editorial oversight or article from a peer-reviewed journal meets that standard. HokieRNB 11:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Myth is not a "bias word" : it is the academic term for the subject of the article. It is also, as I have said, a better title than narrative for multiple reasons. Interestingly, "myth" only seems to be a polemic if used in reference to Christianity. I have never seen it objected to on another creation myth article. Do I sense systemic bias at work? Rwenonah (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Here are some reputable dictionaries which give the non-pejorative usage of myth primacy. I would think that the meaning of myth largely depends on the context ; for example, if myth is used in an article about a creation story (like this one) it would be taken to mean "a traditional story", while if myth is used in reference to something like, to take Bus stop's source, terrorism, it would be taken to have a pejorative meaning. Rwenonah (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
  1. ^ Dundes, Introduction, p. 1
  2. ^ Every 22
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative/Archive_22&oldid=1090559249"