Talk:List of creation myths
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
RfC: Rename Article
editTo solve the problem of edit warring and griping about content, just rename the article from "List of creation myths" to "List of creation stories". The article itself uses both terms so there is no loss of accuracy. For those who hold the story to be dear and true, the term "story" is less confrontational than the term "myth". -- Avanu (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- No. There is no "problem of edit warring" to speak of. The most common term is "creation myth". This is an encyclopedia where people come to look up topics in a free encyclopedia. Wikipedia should aspire to be the resource for readers who come here to look something up, readers who want to know more about something or have specific questions - and it's a disservice to them to obfuscate or perpetuate misinterpretations. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- No - Myths are not simply stories but sacred stories intended to have some sort of religious or philosophical truth. As FisherQueen explains at NPOVN, her seventh-grade students know this, it's not highly academic. Even if it was highly academic, as Professor Marginalia points out, this is the place to educate people on concepts, especially once such as this that do not require our readers to have a PhD to grasp. The "edit-warring and griping about content" was one POV-pusher who didn't understand WP:GEVAL. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- As you yourself point out, calling a widely-held belief a "myth" is something that is easily misinterpreted as an insult. This name change doesn't take anything away from the article, but drops the most contentious word from the title. You cannot avoid the layperson's definition of "myth" (link) which implies falseness, even if the academic definition supposedly doesn't have any pejorative connotations. -- Avanu (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Evolution, liberal, conservative, communist, Muslim, and Christian all have lay-connotations (especially in the US) that no academic would support, but we give those terms the academic treatment because we're supposed to educate the ignorant instead of give in to them. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- You educate and you speak their language at the same time. This isn't required to be either/or. It is simple to both educate on the more academic terminology while still using the commonly understood terminology. -- Avanu (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- So, wait, we're going to correct the common misconception that myth means false story, explaining that it means sacred story, by not using the word myth in the article title? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- You educate and you speak their language at the same time. This isn't required to be either/or. It is simple to both educate on the more academic terminology while still using the commonly understood terminology. -- Avanu (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Evolution, liberal, conservative, communist, Muslim, and Christian all have lay-connotations (especially in the US) that no academic would support, but we give those terms the academic treatment because we're supposed to educate the ignorant instead of give in to them. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- As you yourself point out, calling a widely-held belief a "myth" is something that is easily misinterpreted as an insult. This name change doesn't take anything away from the article, but drops the most contentious word from the title. You cannot avoid the layperson's definition of "myth" (link) which implies falseness, even if the academic definition supposedly doesn't have any pejorative connotations. -- Avanu (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- No. We aim for correctness, not political correctness. A myth is a myth is a myth. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. A myth is a myth, and it is very clear what is and isn't a myth. Some people also tell their children about Santa Claus and the stork from Paris, and we will never equal validity to that stuff and the real thing. Babies are born because a man and a woman had sex, Santa Claus is the parents, and life evolved during millions of years Cambalachero (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Maybe in Simple Wikipedia, but this is the grownup version and we should use grownup terminology. Besides the fact that this is indeed a list of creation myths, not just stories that someone wrote about creation (renaming would mean we'd be including best selling stories about creation, etc). We don't ban photos of Mohammed here either. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nope. a13ean (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. The articles linked from the list - and the list introduction, to a lesser extent - explain the term by expounding its context. "Myth" in this sense isn't exclusive jargon, or a "term of art", or an insult via the back door. It's common English usage, and a colloquial use of the same word as "falsehood" doesn't justify a change of title, exemption for particular or favoured cases, or a wholesale deletion. (It just occurred to me that the logical onward step from the proposed change would be removal of all derivatives of "myth". Such as "mythology". We've many, many articles on that... and many categories). Haploidavey (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- > Will those who are against renaming this one please go to Genesis creation narrative and have that one renamed? Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not to put too fine a point on it, all creation myths are myths in every sense of the word: they are not literally true. If that upsets some people that the scientific community thinks that way, so be it. It's nothing new and they should not expect anything else. WP doesn't cater to religious beliefs, nor is it censored because of religious or any other objections. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to do an RfC to rename that article Genesis creation myth, I'm all for it, but right now I have enough battles to contend with to take it on. I'm sure that name is a compromise that was hammered out over a long and bitter battle, as evidenced by the talk page. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose, and I find it really unfortunate that there is continued pressure to move these types of articles away from the scholarly terminology towards more politically correct wording. I opposed changing Genesis creation myth to Genesis creation narrative about two and a half years ago as well, and would gladly see it moved back if possible. —Torchiest talkedits 18:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. For reasons outlined above. Scholarly terminology should be kept over political correctness.--SabreBD (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. These are all myths until there is evidence for any of them at which point they no longer become myths. Simples. Almufasa (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
More support for renaming the article
editThe following is from the NPOV noticeboard concerning listing biblical creation as a myth. (bolding added later) In hindsight I think that renaming is better than deletion, and that there are other creation stores also involved. But deletion would still be plan B.
- - -
I'm an atheist and consider creationism to be incorrect, doubly so if taken literally. But Wikipedia is no place to be taking value-judgement swipes at something that is a core religious belief of hundreds of millions of people. The common meaning of "myth" includes "false". A list article that dominoes into editors taking value-judgement swipes at widely held religious beliefs should either leave off highly controversial classifications, or have the whole list article deleted. I suspect that the latter is the better remedy as such a list inherently pejorative, and inherently the value judgement of the editors, even if they can find cherry-picked sources that promote their same value judgement. Wikipedia is for covering things, not inventing value-judgements on them. North8000 (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- So go ahead and start an AfD. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'll post something to this effect on the article talk page. North8000 (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- - - - -
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- If we check the way that the mere rename proposal is being received, here and in the noticeboard, I think there won't be a snowball's chance in hell of getting a better consensus in an AFD, so you should not bother with it. Cambalachero (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Too bad. You would think that sometimes common courtesy would be enough. -- Avanu (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- There are down sides to both formulations: myth and story/narrative. "Sacred narrative" or "sacred story" are far less offensive to believing readers, and as clear as "myth", in most instances. I would like the believing reader to read what we have to say. While we use "myth" when we could as accurately use "story" or "narrative" we are reducing the likelihood of believers engaging with our text, and so we fail rhetorically, and we impede the foundation mission. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure this is not what you intended, but the implications are too close to the idea that a "spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down" as I see it. I reject any implication that it serves the mission of the project to patronize or "re-educate" any of its readers, including believers. Wikipedia should serve those who desire to be knowledgeable and should resist any temptation to build views/converts via any wp-culture spin. Creation myth is the most relevant (and common) academic and general use term for this subject. To take this:
A creation myth (or creation story) is a cultural, traditional or religious myth which describes the earliest beginnings of the present world. Creation myths are the most common form of myth, usually developing first in oral traditions, and are found throughout human culture. A creation myth is usually regarded by those who subscribe to it as conveying profound truths, although not necessarily in a historical or literal sense. They are commonly, although not always, considered cosmogonical myths—that is they describe the ordering of the cosmos from a state of chaos or amorphousness."
- and revise it something along the lines of this:
A creation story (or creation myth) is a cultural, traditional or religious story which describes the earliest beginnings of the present world. Creation stories are the most common form of story, usually developing first in oral traditions, and are found throughout human culture. A creation story is usually regarded by those who subscribe to it as conveying profound truths, although not necessarily in a historical or literal sense. They are commonly, although not always, considered cosmogonical stories—that is they describe the ordering of the cosmos from a state of chaos or amorphousness.
- and to my ears, it sounds like wikipedia either just belched this up last minute and lamely attempted to put a shiny polish on it to disguise the fact they failed to read the homework assigned, or it did read the assigned material and now is insulting me aka "the wikipedia reader" by translating it to baby talk. I think it's critical that we maintain faith in readers. I prefer we assume if they're here, they've asked some kind of question. And that they be given a straight answer-not a wikimediated answer. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't use "story" in most instances there, though "narrative" or "sacred narrative" would be perfectly suitable. Something like this:
--Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)A creation narrative is a cultural, traditional or religious story which describes the earliest beginnings of the present world. Creation narratives are the most common form of myth, usually developing first in oral traditions, and are found throughout human culture. A creation narrative is usually regarded by those who subscribe to it as conveying profound truths, although not necessarily in a historical or literal sense. They are commonly, although not always, considered cosmogonical stories—that is they describe the ordering of the cosmos from a state of chaos or amorphousness.
- I wouldn't use "story" in most instances there, though "narrative" or "sacred narrative" would be perfectly suitable. Something like this:
- I'm sure this is not what you intended, but the implications are too close to the idea that a "spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down" as I see it. I reject any implication that it serves the mission of the project to patronize or "re-educate" any of its readers, including believers. Wikipedia should serve those who desire to be knowledgeable and should resist any temptation to build views/converts via any wp-culture spin. Creation myth is the most relevant (and common) academic and general use term for this subject. To take this:
- There are down sides to both formulations: myth and story/narrative. "Sacred narrative" or "sacred story" are far less offensive to believing readers, and as clear as "myth", in most instances. I would like the believing reader to read what we have to say. While we use "myth" when we could as accurately use "story" or "narrative" we are reducing the likelihood of believers engaging with our text, and so we fail rhetorically, and we impede the foundation mission. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Too bad. You would think that sometimes common courtesy would be enough. -- Avanu (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Most of the comments denigrating the proposed name change as being things like baby-talk, political correctness, failure to educate the reader are all based on the starting premise that the editors here decide that all of the items listed here are false and then to "educate" the reader to what we just decided by classifying these beliefs as false. That is not how Wikipedia works. And fighting for unneeded terminology that unnecessarily and actively "kicks" other people's beliefs is unnecessarily nasty and POV. North8000 (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not true and a cheap shot, imo. All it takes is a quick skim of the references cited to confirm "myth" is the proper term per sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- And that's what it ultimately comes down to, sources. The academic secondary sources use the term "myth" to mean a sacred story, not a false story. To continue to insist that myth in this context means false story is POV-pushing an outright error against the sources. An error or misconception, no matter how commonly held, should not be included especially if the academic sources say otherwise, or else we need to nominate this article for deletion. Drawing from that article for parallels, I've had to explain even to some Catholics that the Immaculate Conception refers to the birth of Mary, not Jesus. Should we simply redirect that article to Virgin birth of Jesus because most people don't understand historical Catholic doctrine? A lot of anti-evolutionists I talk with often say "well, evolution is only a theory." Should we redirect theory to hypothesis because a lot of Americans do not know what the word "theory" means? No. Wikipedia does not give in to common stupidity, it tries to fix it, and explaining that "myth" means "sacred story" is not going to happen without using the M-word. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- When you say sources say something is a "myth" which "something" are you referring to? But either way, with the biblical creation story as an example, I'm sure that there are zillions of referrals to it in references. I'm going to make a reasonable guess that only a minority use the (in this case) pejorative "myth" noun. And that a majority use less pejorative terms like "story". Finding a source is requirement for inclusion, not a force for inclusion. So finding a source that uses the pejorative term is not grounds for forcing it in, particular when it violates WP:nopv regarding wording. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- When I say "myth" I mean "sacred story," not just "story." Also, you have yet to demonstrate that myth has a pejorative meaning in the academic world.
- The Oxford Companion to World Mythology describes the Genesis creation story as a myth.
- This theological work by a Catholic priest is titled "Genesis Myth Of Manifold Meanings."
- "The Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis."
- "Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction" by Lawrence Boadt says "...Genesis 1-11 is indeed a different type of literature--myth" (p.107).
- "Tree of Souls:The Mythology of Judaism" discusses Genesis at length.
- "A Dictionary of Creation Myths" also discusses Genesis, calling it a "demythologized myth" because it doesn't concern ritual (though still is still a sacred story and concern cosmogony).
- "Genesis" by Athalya Brenner, Archie Chi-Chung Lee, Gale A. Yee refers to the work as a myth.
- "Biblical And Classical Myths: The Mythological Framework Of Western Culture" discusses Genesis at length.
- "Myth" by Laurence Coupe discusses Genesis as a myth.
- "The Seductiveness of Jewish Myth: Challenge Or Response?" features the essay "The Poetics of Myth in Genesis."
- Myth is accepted by academics as meaning "sacred stories" such that theologians apply it to Genesis without any sort of negative connotation. I didn't even have to whip out C.S. Lewis, Mircea Eliade, Carl Jung, or Joseph Campbell. Either put forth some evidence that this is not the academic understanding of the word or quit trying to censor the article because of an erroneous understanding of the word. We do not allow young-earth-creationism to taint our articles on evolution with their common misunderstanding, it's the same principle here: academia (including anthropologists, folklorists, and theologians) uses the word "myth" to mean "sacred story" without judgement of truth or falsehood. Some people not knowing what they're talking about when they misuse the word myth is no reason to change the M-word. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- For the umpteenth time, "myth" is not a pejorative. It's a genre. Myth. What is it? [1] Professor marginalia (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- When I say "myth" I mean "sacred story," not just "story." Also, you have yet to demonstrate that myth has a pejorative meaning in the academic world.
- When you say sources say something is a "myth" which "something" are you referring to? But either way, with the biblical creation story as an example, I'm sure that there are zillions of referrals to it in references. I'm going to make a reasonable guess that only a minority use the (in this case) pejorative "myth" noun. And that a majority use less pejorative terms like "story". Finding a source is requirement for inclusion, not a force for inclusion. So finding a source that uses the pejorative term is not grounds for forcing it in, particular when it violates WP:nopv regarding wording. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- And that's what it ultimately comes down to, sources. The academic secondary sources use the term "myth" to mean a sacred story, not a false story. To continue to insist that myth in this context means false story is POV-pushing an outright error against the sources. An error or misconception, no matter how commonly held, should not be included especially if the academic sources say otherwise, or else we need to nominate this article for deletion. Drawing from that article for parallels, I've had to explain even to some Catholics that the Immaculate Conception refers to the birth of Mary, not Jesus. Should we simply redirect that article to Virgin birth of Jesus because most people don't understand historical Catholic doctrine? A lot of anti-evolutionists I talk with often say "well, evolution is only a theory." Should we redirect theory to hypothesis because a lot of Americans do not know what the word "theory" means? No. Wikipedia does not give in to common stupidity, it tries to fix it, and explaining that "myth" means "sacred story" is not going to happen without using the M-word. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Is the ANYBODY here who questions that the common meaning of "myth" includes "falsehood"? North8000 (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- *points to above sources and authors* It is a misunderstanding of the term, the way a lot of people get "evolution" and "atheism" mixed up, or "Islam" and "terrorism" mixed up. It's a mistake, and it's not a mistake that Wikipedia should perpetuate. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
On your "points to above sources" item, I never said that your definition does not exist; you are saying that mine does not exist. So re-proving that yours exists is not responding to the conversation. On your "misunderstanding" statements, huh?:
- Random House dictionary definition of "myth" : "An imaginary or fictitious thing or person. His account of the event is pure myth"
- Random House dictionary definition of "myth": "Any invented story, idea or concept"
- Random House Dictionary definition of "myth": "An unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution
Shall I find and list a dozen more? The definition of which you speak also exists, but the above three are not only not "false", they are the common meaning of the term. And "fictitious", "invented", "imaginary" and "false" are certainly pejorative when referring to someones deeply held religious beliefs. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ian, what about people who mix up "myth" and "myth"? This isn't about someone confusing two different words. I'm not even proposing that all occurences of 'myth' get replaced. I'm simply suggesting that the article acknowledge that not all of these items are considered 'myths' via the common understanding of the word 'myth'. I'm not understanding why there is such a resistance to an easy and very minor change. It seems that most of the editors above acknowledge that "sacred story" and "myth" mean the same thing in academia. Yet those two terms are definitely not synonymous in plain language usage. Is there not a place for conveying things in a way that seeks to educate and avoids offense? -- Avanu (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- There is no doubt what "myth" means in anthropology. Equally, there is no doubt it carries the meaning "fictitious", "invented", "imaginary" and "false" in common usage. Ian and the professor need to acknowledge the latter if they wish to be taken seriously in this discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Excuse me? "If I want to be taken seriously?" I've done considerable work on this-including getting my hands on the most solid references I could find (3 or 4 dozen references). And that's what I take seriously--accurately, straightforwardly representing the content from the best sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- You've demonstrated that you take this issue seriously. I can't take you seriously, though, while you fail to concede that the general reader is going to read "myth" as "false". --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Whether or not you take me seriously is irrelevant to the issue before us, isn't it? You and I and every other editor volunteering here-we're all supposed to take the sources seriously. And of course I don't concede that the "general reader" is going to conclude "myth" means "false". A) It's not the #1 definition-even in Random House. It's #3. B) I assume that the "general reader" ~reads~ and the article doesn't say that "creation myth" means "creation falsehood". Myth is the term Britannica's used forever without any evident uproar over it. C) I assume the general reader would be insulted at the notion wikipedians have so little faith in its readers it gives them an "adulterated" version of topics "for their own good". I am a "general reader" and that's how I'd feel. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- So, let's not take each other too seriously. (And I mean that as a bit of humor with the intent lead us to cooler heads.) However, I do have a question. Is this supposed to be a scientific article or just a general article? The reason I ask is because it seems that some of our editors are insisting on a very scientific approach to this article, while it seems others are more concerned with a general audience. -- Avanu (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a scientific article. It's a list of creation myths. The creation myths article hasn't got a scintilla of "science" in it. So I don't know what you're talking about. There is no scientific content here whatsoever. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please pardon me. I was referring to the combination of anthropology and folkloristics and so on. I presume anthropology is a science, while the study of stories would be related to literature. Let me rephrase. ***RESTART*** Is this supposed to be a academically-oriented article or just a general article? The reason I ask is because it seems that some of our editors are insisting on a very academically-oriented approach to this article, while it seems others are more concerned with a general audience. (Does this make more sense, Prof?) -- Avanu (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. That is helpful. Here's my attempt to explain what I think Wikipedia's about. I think it's a community project bringing a free content / free use encyclopedia to the internet that extends no-strings attached (few anyway) access to the information and content. I do not see it as an agent in any kind of Cultural Revolution to upend academic expertise. It's about providing good information sans pay wall, imo. I don't understand the notion that a "general audience" would come to wikipedia just to confirm everything they know is 100% true. I never look up stuff on here that I think I already know. I look up stuff I don't know. I appreciate the objective of telling it straight because there's no efficiency, as far as I'm concerned, with getting information for free if it's worthless. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- You and I are in agreement wrt our mission. I am concerned about the readers who simply won't read an article that describes their truth as false. They're roughly equal terms; one of the terms though, "myth", carries a meaning, the connotation "false". I think science does find, correctly, that religion is mostly very false indeed. And I have no problem whatever with us saying religion is a pernicious poison, personally. I think you'll find we do. Simply by reporting the truth. We are opening the blinds on the nearest we have to truth, for humankind, and it does not show religion in a good light.
Using a word that certainly, unambiguously, always implies "false" in common parlance, when there are a couple of others that describe the subject ("story", "narrative") without that connotation, is telling the reader, in Wikipedia's voice, that the story is false.
- You and I are in agreement wrt our mission. I am concerned about the readers who simply won't read an article that describes their truth as false. They're roughly equal terms; one of the terms though, "myth", carries a meaning, the connotation "false". I think science does find, correctly, that religion is mostly very false indeed. And I have no problem whatever with us saying religion is a pernicious poison, personally. I think you'll find we do. Simply by reporting the truth. We are opening the blinds on the nearest we have to truth, for humankind, and it does not show religion in a good light.
- Thanks. That is helpful. Here's my attempt to explain what I think Wikipedia's about. I think it's a community project bringing a free content / free use encyclopedia to the internet that extends no-strings attached (few anyway) access to the information and content. I do not see it as an agent in any kind of Cultural Revolution to upend academic expertise. It's about providing good information sans pay wall, imo. I don't understand the notion that a "general audience" would come to wikipedia just to confirm everything they know is 100% true. I never look up stuff on here that I think I already know. I look up stuff I don't know. I appreciate the objective of telling it straight because there's no efficiency, as far as I'm concerned, with getting information for free if it's worthless. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please pardon me. I was referring to the combination of anthropology and folkloristics and so on. I presume anthropology is a science, while the study of stories would be related to literature. Let me rephrase. ***RESTART*** Is this supposed to be a academically-oriented article or just a general article? The reason I ask is because it seems that some of our editors are insisting on a very academically-oriented approach to this article, while it seems others are more concerned with a general audience. (Does this make more sense, Prof?) -- Avanu (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a scientific article. It's a list of creation myths. The creation myths article hasn't got a scintilla of "science" in it. So I don't know what you're talking about. There is no scientific content here whatsoever. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- So, let's not take each other too seriously. (And I mean that as a bit of humor with the intent lead us to cooler heads.) However, I do have a question. Is this supposed to be a scientific article or just a general article? The reason I ask is because it seems that some of our editors are insisting on a very scientific approach to this article, while it seems others are more concerned with a general audience. -- Avanu (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Personally, I believe that's the case. I don't, though, believe it's Wikipedia's place to do that. It feels a bit like OR on a very big scale, indeed. Can you see the problem I see? I just don't think it's our job to make that call. I honestly think that's something we should leave to our reader. (I do think we should treat all sacred foundation narratives in this way. Presently, a fair bit of the bible foundation narrative is presented as narrative, while those of most other traditions are called myths.)
- Anyway, can I point you to m:Talk:Wikimedia_Medicine? We're trying to decide on a vision statement, mission statement and aims. You may find it interesting to watch the birth of what I believe is a very exciting project. If it does interest you, I'd like to hear your thoughts. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Parenthesis 11:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
If we're honest, some folks are fighting for assigning the "myth" word to these beliefs because they KNOW that the common meaning of "myth" is "false" and want to make that slam, and then using the other more esoteric definition of myth to defend that by saying the "myth" doesn't means false. BTW, I am a scientific atheist, and believe that if every issue is pursued to it's bitter end that science debunks religion. I choose not to pursue that nasty clash, and believe that there is no reason for volleys in that nasty clash to be fired in Wikipedia in places where there is no usefulness in doing so. Such as by stating that peoples core religious beliefs are false by calling them "myths". North8000 (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Great way to WP:AGF in the first two lines. I'm a Christian who sees Genesis and evolution as the same thing from two different vantage points, I'm not pushing for "myth" as a slam, I'm trying to prevent common misunderstanding from taking over the academic use of a term, as as any of use would have no problem doing with the articles on evolution or Islam. Dictionaries are tertiary sources that are focused on the common use of the word rather than it's academic meaning. Reliable sources specialized in a subject naturally take priority over sources that are not focused on a subject. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- I just said "some" folks and left it at that vagueness. Not intending that towards you, but it was based on experience here and elsewhere. On your "same thing" the more power to you; I have tried to do the same. I don't agree that a more esoteric/specialized academic meaning should take precedence over the common meaning, much the less the "steps beyond that" that you are arguing for which is that the common meaning should be ignored. I think that I've said and explained my main points. I'm going to try to sit back a bit on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Common usage is not a 'misunderstanding'. Academics use the word 'theory' much differently than common people. This leads to stupid endless debates because the common understanding is that a theory is a guess, not a fairly certain thing tested by experimentation. You have the same sort of problem here. You want to 'kick against the pricks' of the common understanding as if the academic minority definition will supplant the majority definition. I suppose anything is possible, but it is fairly unlikely. And doubly so if you simply expect people to know your definition, rather than explaining it to them. And while North8000 should have made sure and stay on a discussion of content only, we can all clearly see from the comments on this Talk page, that some people feel this proposed change is giving in, dumbing down, hiding the truth, and allowing the uneducated to win. I think sometimes a person can have too high an opinion of themselves once they know something. Socrates was thought to say that his knowledge amounted to nothing (compared with what he didn't know).
- I just said "some" folks and left it at that vagueness. Not intending that towards you, but it was based on experience here and elsewhere. On your "same thing" the more power to you; I have tried to do the same. I don't agree that a more esoteric/specialized academic meaning should take precedence over the common meaning, much the less the "steps beyond that" that you are arguing for which is that the common meaning should be ignored. I think that I've said and explained my main points. I'm going to try to sit back a bit on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- The point is, if you want our readers to deeply understand your definition, take a moment to explain yours in contrast to theirs. To simply assume they should be using your definition or they're dumb is just silly. -- Avanu (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm a bit late for this discussion but the authoritative Oxford English Dictionary gives the following two definitions of myth. The primary definition is:
- 1. A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon.
- The secondary definition is:
- 2. A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing.
- From my understanding, the phrase "typically involving supernatural beings or forces," a criterion also used by Henri Frankfort in his scholarly discussion of mythopoeic thought, is a useful one to distinguish myth from non-myth. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm elsewhere occupied lately but this discussion seems slowed enough for me to see a constructive response to the "pernicious poison" idea. I admit that there are editors that try to exploit the "common meaning of "myth" is 'false' and want to make that slam". I know. I see it too. But this is the internet-and it's REPLEAT with people who are "wrong". So what? Tune it out. Wikipedia isn't about annihilating all the wrong people who lend input on the internet. It's about providing solid, useful and therefore valuable content for free on the internet. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Images (or rather, image)
editAs Cynwolfe points out on my talk-page, the list is illustrated by just one image, Michaelangelo's "Creation of Adam". The use of this solitary image, top page, seems problematic (for a host of reasons not entirely unrelated to discussions above). At the very least, it seems WP:Undue, and should either be removed, or included as one among many creation-myth images from different religious traditions. Thoughts? Haploidavey (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Get rid of it. It's just a List and we don't need it to accommodate a gallery of images. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have removed the image link (the image should however not be deleted as it's linked by many other articles). 76.10.128.192 (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think there should be a lead image. The MoS strongly encourages a lead image. The Creation of Adam is probably the most iconic creation myth image there is, which is why I think it is an appropriate lead image for this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- "The MoS strongly encourages a lead image." Can you wikilink this guideline? I should think they're difficult to pull off appropriately (just dealing with NPOV alone, as well as many other reasons) in List pages. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- An image of a particular creation myth adds nothing of value to the list, violates NPOV and stirs up inevitable drama. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly. You're very alone with your opinion, Rreagan. Please self-revert. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- An image of a particular creation myth adds nothing of value to the list, violates NPOV and stirs up inevitable drama. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- "The MoS strongly encourages a lead image." Can you wikilink this guideline? I should think they're difficult to pull off appropriately (just dealing with NPOV alone, as well as many other reasons) in List pages. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think there should be a lead image. The MoS strongly encourages a lead image. The Creation of Adam is probably the most iconic creation myth image there is, which is why I think it is an appropriate lead image for this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have removed the image link (the image should however not be deleted as it's linked by many other articles). 76.10.128.192 (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Gravitational Causation
editPer WP:SOAP. Not a serious request. Editor unwilling to provide to provide reliable sources. Guettarda (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Sources for question [1][2][3][4]</nowiki></nowiki> --Kaptinavenger (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Does Hawking's popular belief that gravity caused (created) the universe qualify as a creation myth? And if it does should it be added to this list? --Kaptinavenger (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I propose adding a sub section "Secular" under "Basic Type" and listing "The Big Bang Theory(When the prevailing cosmological model is believed in as proven fact.)" --Kaptinavenger (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
References
|
Secular Creation Myths
editTime wasting
|
---|
I propose listing "Big Bang theory" linking to Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory under sub section "Ex nihilo". The Dictionary of Creation Myths is already being used as source and Big Bang theory is listed on page 31, thus the already listed sources are sufficient. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Here is an excerpt from page 240 of David Leeming's Creation Myths of the World: "Myths are considered truth by the cul- tures from which they first emerge·at least until they are exposed as myth. The big bang theory, the currently accepted creation story of our scientific culture, reflects our cultural priorities; it is a re- cord of our cultureÊs understanding of its own place in the universe and its sense of what the universe is. It depicts a world created in a few minutes in one great ex- plosion long, long ago. According to the theory, our solar system was organized by that explosion and has been expand- ing ever since. At this moment, we can see the moment of creation because the light from the first explosion reaches us now after a voyage taking 20 billion years. The big bang theory suggests that everything that exists has a common an- cestry in a single primeval event, the ulti- mate expression of an ex nihilo creation. See Also: Cosmic Egg in Creation, Creation from Chaos , Ex Nihilo Creation , Goddess as Creator, Sun in Creation. References and Further Reading Leach, Maria. The Beginning: Creation Myths around the World, 17–20. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1956. Leeming, David A., and Margaret Leeming. Encyclopedia of Creation Myths . Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 1994. Revised as A Dictionary of Creation Myths , New York: Oxford, 1994. Lovelock, James. „Gaia: A Model for Planetary and Cellular Dynamics,‰ in Gaia: A Way of Knowing, ed. William Erwin Thompson. New York: Lindisfarne. 1987. S wimme, Brian. The Universe Is a Green Dragon: A Cosmic Creation Story. Santa Fe, NM: Bear & Co., 1984. " --Kaptinavenger (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
|