Talk:Genesis creation narrative

RfC: Should the lede define the narrative as a "myth, in the academic sense"?

The fighting over the use of the word "myth" with regards to the first two chapters of Genesis has raged on now for years. The main issue is that the word has a very well known common usage (a fictional tale) and a lesser known but widely used academic meaning ("A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it").

There are editors who are adamant that the word "myth" not be used at all in this context, lest Wikipedia be seen as supporting the view that the first two chapters of Genesis are fictional.

There are editors who are adamant that the word "myth" be the primary descriptor of the first two chapters of Genesis, often for the opposite reason: so that the casual reader will understand those chapters as being non-historical.

Neither side will ever back down, and I think we're all aware of that. But the conflict itself is predicated on an overly terse use of the word. Why leave things vague? Wikipedia is not meant to adopt either of the above views, which are both in violation of WP:NPOV. Nor is it intended to "hint" at one point of view or another. And the conflict is easily solved by making it clear that the Genesis creation narrative is a creation myth, but that it's a creation myth in the academic sense of the word. Hence the change from this:

The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible).

to this:

The Genesis creation narrative is the story of the creation of the world as described in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible). It is a creation myth, in the academic sense of the term.

This RfC is solely on the question of this edit. Please comment in the "threaded discussion" space below. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment - Although this does not directly pertain to the edit in question, I wanted to clarify something you stated: the use of myth is not a violation of WP:NPOV, but is in fact supported by said policy, which has an entire section, WP:RNPOV, that directly deals with this. That "myth" not be used at all is a violation of said policy. However, I don't say that with prejudice either for or against the edit in question, but just to clarify that the removal of myth is not a policy-supported option. The clarification that usage of this word is used in the formal sense, however, I think is a valid discussion. - SudoGhost 16:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think your NPOV comment is misguided, but at least your intentions seem correct, and I have a more eloquent suggestion (phrases like "in the academic sense of the term" seem stylistically odd - consider a similar phrase in scientific articles that use the term "theory").

Ideally the article title would be something like Genesis creation myth which would allow us to expand the precise definition of the term creation myth in the very first sentence, for example:

The Genesis creation myth is the symbolic narrative found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis that describes how the world was created.

This simultaneously deals with both sides of this tug-of-war: it clarifies exactly what we mean by creation myth (so as not to confuse readers, or impress upon readers that it is a fictional account which literalists may find offensive) without them having to click another link to find out, and still correctly uses academic terminology. As an added bonus, the article title would be consistent with our articles on other creation myths. 114.78.5.201 (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Your revision looks great 114.78.5.201. I might suggest the removal of the word "symbolic" since many take the narrative to be a literal one. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to also agree with 114.78.5.201's suggestion, minus the "symbolic" term. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 23:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur, the irony being that this page used to be called Genesis Creation Myth and iirc that was really close to the opening sentence. I like this phrasing and think that the page itself should be moved to Genesis Creation Myth with this new wording. N^oformation ^Talk 23:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I like this suggestion, with the exception that it doesn't include a link to creation myth. I'm not sure if that's ok or not. On one hand, we'd be including creation myth in the title, and thus providing a proper definition of the subject. On the other hand, the lack of a wikilink may be less helpful to readers unfamiliar with the term. It seems appropriate to mention and link creation myth within the body... could we, perhaps, also do this when mentioning the relationship to Mesopotamian creation myths? Then, we would have a concise definition in sentence 1, and a wikilink for readers shortly after. Would that be acceptable for everyone?   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm okay with this proposal if it's acceptable to everyone. I think we can do better, but if this is the most agreeable solution, that's ok.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I had simply assumed that the bolded "creation myth" text would be linked to its respective article, which is what I support doing as well. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 00:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing the lack of wikilink was an oversight, the IP can correct me if I'm wrong. If there are no objections to this in 24 hours I'm going to be WP:BOLD and make the move and the changes. N^oformation ^Talk 01:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually I won't be able to make the move. The page already exists as a redirect and so an admin would have to do it. N^oformation ^Talk 02:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment-I am totally against placing the POV spin phrase of creation myth into the title of the article, color it any way you want, it is still POV spin directing the reader to the viewpoint that the Genesis creation account is a false tale, but to include it in the title simply moves the POV spin into the title of the article as well as the body, compounding the problem. I think the view of both sides needs to be expressed, anything less is in violation of WP:NPOV and the title of the article is no different than the body in the consideration of this. The original suggested edit is likely the closest we will ever get to adhering to this policy. Willietell (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless all articles about creation myths are treated in the same way, it is not neutral to assign special treatment to this article in particular. The scholarly consensus is that the events as recorded in the Genesis creation myth did not happen.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It's the POV of the reliable sources and that's really the only thing that matters. NPOV doesn't mean that WP doesn't present any POV, it means that editors can't present their POV. "N" doesn't mean "non" and "neutral" doesn't mean "unbiased." As far as I am aware, the absolutely majority of scholarly sources (which are what count, not some dude who lives in Alabama with no theological qualifications) characterize Genesis as a creation myth, so right now the article is an NPOV violation because it caters to reader offense rather than scholarly treatment. I seriously doubt anyone in academia actually believes that a snake literally talked, that's a very fringe view. I seriously doubt that the view that a snake literally talked is taken seriously in any academic circles (my statement was too strong, rewording). N^oformation ^Talk 05:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with 114.78.5.201 on most points. I think "myth" is probably a word to watch in the sense that it lacks precision and may introduce bias, and I'd support using a synonym of some sort. I think Lisa's on the right track, though I like the IP's suggestion better (for the reasons he/she gave). Another possible alternative might be:

The Genesis creation narrative is the story of creation contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible).

This way, story, account, narrative, or some other synonym can be pipe-linked to the creation myth article, without implying a bias to someone who doesn't know the academic definition of myth. As a side note, I think the term "creation myth" should definitely be used later on in the article (as it is) but it's probably not quite right for the first sentence. Hope this helps. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Mythology is one of the two examples given in the policy WP:RNPOV: Editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. - SudoGhost 19:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with you, though I would still argue that the word myth needs to be used carefully so as not to mislead a reader who might not know the formal meaning. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm with you 100% on that. "Creation myth" is used to refer to Genesis only once in the article itself, in the lede, and is used in a formal sense, and links to an article explaining exactly what is meant when it is used in that sense. The other uses of the term "creation myth" in the article refer to other creation myths. I cannot speak for any use of the term "myth" or "mythology" as opposed to "creation myth", because I haven't looked into it (and is not, to my understanding, the focus of this RfC), but I believe that every instance of "creation myth" in the article is used carefully, and in the formal sense of the term. - SudoGhost 20:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You obviously know the article better than I do. It sounds like there might be a mild violation of WP:LEAD at issue as well (in that the Lead is supposed to summarize the article, therefore if something isn't in the article, it probably shouldn't be in the Lead either). I don't think that's anything we need to argue about here though...it seems there's enough going on already :-) Anyway, I think everybody agrees on the accuracy of the academic definition of myth in creation myth. Perhaps the question we should be asking is whether or not it is immediately clear to the reader that this definition is the one intended. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Does the term 'creation myth' (not just 'myth') have a non-academic meaning? In my view, there is no reason to treat the word 'myth' in isolation from the phrase 'creation myth' when the link plainly is to the latter. It would would be like linking to Alvin Rouse and then claiming that 'Rouse' is ambiguous. Considering sentence structure, I would much rather the term 'creation myth' be defined within the first sentence rather than split off into a short, second sentence. For example:

The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth – the symbolic narrative of how the world began – contained in the first two chapters ...

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Adjwilley for most of it. Note: I've been passively watching this discussion elevate ever since it was started. The word "myth" is definately a word to watch in both 'the sense that it lacks precision' and that it will most likely 'introduce bias'. I may be O.K. with a synonym. Lisa is on the right track, as well as the IP (as far as the reason goes). Adjiwilley's definition, modified by me:

The Genesis creation narrative is the story of creation as presented in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible and Christian Old Testament.

This way, account/narrative/other or some is linked to the creation myth article, without implying a bias to someone who isn't familiar with or does not recognize the "academic definition" of myth. Wekn reven 18:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment- I actually like this idea even better than the original idea as it solves both problems by eliminating the POV spin term creation myth while still linking to the page to provide an explanation for the uninformed reader who might be curious. I therefore support using the phrase suggested by Wekn reven which states:

The Genesis creation narrative is the story of creation as presented in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible and Christian Old Testament.

Willietell (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that "myth" is not a "word to watch", "creation myth" is not a "POV spin term" (only by misunderstanding the meaning of the term could it be considered as such), and the suggested change runs counter to Wikipedia policy. - SudoGhost 05:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with User:Adjwilley, User:Wekn reven i susej eht, and 114.78.5.201, et. al. The word myth is probably a "word to watch in the sense that it lacks precision and may introduce bias." I would support the inclusion of any of the revisions suggested by these three named individuals. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - With props to the proposer for trying to resolve a long-running dispute (in which I'm not involved), I oppose the proposed change as unnecessary and awkward. The current wording uses not simply the term "myth" but the term "creation myth", which is linked to an article which explains exactly what it means. This wording appears to be neutral, verifiable, and simple—just as it should be. That objections continue or recur doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem with the wording. That some readers who haven't been exposed to the term object to it because it contains a word that has other connotations is unfortunate, but they need only follow the link and read some more to learn something new. That is the way WP should be; we ought not pussyfoot around in our wordings because someone might be offended. Incidentally, the term "creation myth" is hardly esoteric; I first encountered it in high school (then subsequently in various university courses in different disciplines). Rivertorch (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

@Rivertorch, Drawing from personal experience, I was first exposed to the academic usage of myth as a freshman in college. That said, I don't think that Wikipedia should be written at a college level (nor does this UPI article, which criticizes WP for being written at a college level instead of a 9th grade level). Also, a reader should not have to click on a link to discover what an ambiguous term means. This is partly personal preference, but it's also advice that's been given to me by more experienced editors. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, neither of our personal experiences should directly influence the decision being made here. I mentioned my experience only after reading comments that (to my reading) implied the term "creation myth" is somehow absent from common discourse. I'm well aware that it's far from universally understood—even at postsecondary education levels—but I don't think that means we need to clutter up article ledes by defining such terms every time one pops up. That is the beauty of WP's internal links: one term leads to another which leads to another, and before you know it, you've learned something. (I mean "you" in the general sense, of course.) In any event, please note that the relevant term (as I noted above) is not just "myth" but "creation myth", which carries no other meaning aside from the one intended here. Rivertorch (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment WP:RNPOV states "articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader". The term itself is being used correctly and so meets the policy, however it is causing unnecessary offense and is misleading the reader as per the proposal and must be amended to observe the second half of the phrase. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The wording is "...use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense" not "...use these words only in their formal sense and avoid causing unnecessary offense" Using the proper use of the term is what avoids the unnecessary offense. Using the term correctly is what observes the second half of the phrase. By using the term only in the academic sense, in accordance with what reliable sources show, and linking to the article that explains exactly what is meant by the term, we try to minimize any potential offense caused. - SudoGhost 19:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the lesson in prepositions. The problem is that in this case, the use of the term is causing unnecessary offense and is misleading the reader therefore the policy is not being adhered to correctly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The use of the term is necessary, per WP:RNPOV, it is impossible for what is necessary to also be unnecessary. Using the term in the formal sense is what avoids causing unnecessary offense. However, the term must be used per WP:NPOV. This is necessary. What is unnecessary is using it in an informal way, to suggest the informal meaning of the term, thereby offending people without reason. This is what is meant by "use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." The word is being used in its formal sense, therefore it avoids causing unnecessary offense. - SudoGhost 20:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, WP is not censored. I know you've read that link a dozen or so times, maybe 5 times from me, so it's really time to drop the offense angle on this. There are literally hundreds of millions of Muslims who would be offended by our article on Muhammad because it violates a deeply held religious tradition by showing depictions of the prophet but at the end of the Arbcom case the images stand. Secondly, in no way does it mislead the reader. To "mislead" would mean that the word were being used in a context to insinuate something that isn't true - you're conflating the fact that some people may not understand the term with the sentence being misleading. Genesis is a creation myth, this is a fact. Stating that fact is not misleading in the least. You have still yet to give a single policy based reason as to why the term shouldn't be included and ignored the fact that the arguments that you make do not matter on WP at all because offense is not part of our decision making process with very, very few caveats that do not apply to this case. N^oformation ^Talk 01:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

@Noformation: This may be a little tangential, but I was wondering if you had a link to the arbcom case you mentioned previously. I am interested in reading up on it. Also, I've been thinking a lot about the WP:NOTCENSORED argument. I've seen this particular guideline used most often relating to words and images considered offensive because of vulgarity or nudity, though your usage also makes sense. If this interpretation is valid, and NOTCENSORED applies here, I don't think we should ignore the flip side of the coin, in that "Wikipedia is not censored, but Wikipedia also does not seek to needlessly offend its readers." (WP:Offensive material) While I see you as being fairly neutral on the current issue, I've see others taking a stance like, "It's too bad so many people are offended by this wording, but it's accurate, and Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED so we should use it." While I agree with both the accuracy of the wording, and the NOTCENSORED policy, I think it's possible to be both accurate and non-offensive at the same time, at least in this case. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it was a recently settled case and you can read about it here. Just to warn you, this is a long and tedious case to read. I agree with you completely that we shouldn't needlessly offend our readers. If something is going to be offensive it needs to be justified to be included and cannot be included simply because we're not censored. In this case I think that we're well justified in using the word based upon its acceptance in the relevant fields as demonstrated by sources, and so to not include it because it might offend a portion of the population would run counter to NPOV. I might have missed it if other editors have said that we should include it because we're not censored and would not agree with this line of reasoning. That we're not censored doesn't mean we should do anything, but rather if there are compelling reasons to do something the fact that we're not censored is a reason not to not include something. I should probably think of a better way to phrase that :) N^oformation ^Talk 22:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment While I believe that the lead needs a lot of work to comply with the WP:LEAD guideline, I think the first sentence (first three sentences, actually) are fine as they are. I understand that some people may not realize that the word "myth" has multiple meanings (Myth as in "Bigfoot is a myth" vs Myth as in core religious narrative) and take it as a pejorative description, but I don't think we should rephrase it because of their misconceptions. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment A few editors have said that 'myth' is a "word to avoid". This assertion runs directly and explicitly counter to policy. WP:NPOV says "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of...concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at words to avoid." Mythology is one of the two examples used at WP:RNPOV in the above example, and words to avoid has no entry for myth. The claim that we should avoid using myth is spurious, and counter to the exact wording of NPOV, and even if "words to avoid" did address it, the manual of style does not trump one of the five pillars.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a note: the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted says, "Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words [fundamentalism and mythology] only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." I think a problem with the sentence is that it's not immediately clear to an uneducated reader that there is a formal academic definition of myth. I also believe that a reader shouldn't have to constantly follow links to other articles to discover what ambiguous words mean. Though I agree with using the term creation myth in the article, I think the word myth should be used with care, especially in the first sentence of the Lead.

I don't remember if I've ever commented on this article before, but I do remember seeing a RFC here not too long ago. It would be nice if both sides could give a little and agree on something that will be stable. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If it isn't clear to the reader what is meant by the word, they are able to click the term, as it is a wikilink, which provides an "instant pathway to a location within the project that is likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand." - SudoGhost 20:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It won't help. I have shown that several times. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

@Adjwilley, that is correct; that first sentence says we should use mythology "only in its formal sense", which we are doing. The following sentence says that we should not avoid using it out of "concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings". The argument that readers may not understand we're using the formal sense runs counter to that policy.

@Walter, you've shown several times that readers remove "creation myth", but it's been shown to you several times that this behavior is normal and does not influence consensus or the weight of sources. If it did, we'd need to change Age of the universe to say it might be 6,000 years old. That article gets changed far more than this one.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please just read what I've written. You're answering a question that is not an issue. The issue is that while the phrase purports to be unoffensive, it isn't. No amount of reasoning will change that fact. I am not asking for the term to be removed. I am stating that we have to change the way the sentence is written to avoid offence and continuing edit wars over the term. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have, Walter. You're still asserting that readers changing the article against consensus should influence our coverage. It shouldn't. You're still asserting that the term being 'offensive' should influence our coverage. It shouldn't. We are following policy to the letter, which indicates the term may be offensive, and so we should use it only in its formal sense, and not avoid it when appropriate. In theory, I don't object to changing the wording for clarity, but no proposal thus far (including this one) has been acceptable. This wording, like others, attempts to push one of the singular defining characteristics of the subject out of the definition, and adds unnecessary and confusing wording to boot. All this when our current wording is explicitly supported by policy. I mean seriously... it's the example NPOV uses to demonstrate policy. It's not that I haven't read your replies, Walter; it's that you haven't presented a policy-based objection, or a proposal which doesn't suffer from unnecessary problems.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Jess, take a look at the proposal above by 114.78.5.201 and my addendum to it, I think it's more concise than anything else that has been proposed thus far. N^oformation ^Talk 23:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I was avoiding that thread while I mulled it over. I've responded now. That may be our best option for the time being. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

@Walter: You've shown nothing, all you've done is make assertions without any sort of reasoning or appeal to policy and you've ignored every instance of people pointing out to you that you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting policy. All that matters here is what the sources say; that's the whole point of NPOV, that our views as editors are not inserted into the article. Like it or not, the academic sources (which are what WP uses, like it or not) are very explicit in their use of the term. as Jess pointed out, this word is the word used in the policy to demonstrate the policy. Your argument is essentially WP:IJDLI. N^oformation ^Talk 01:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I respectfully disagree. And out of respect for the proposal will stop arguing with the cabal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note The OP for this thread, Lisa (talk, has asked editors to look at two possible ways of working "myth" into the opening of the lead. She is not suggesting that the word be dropped. I think we should restrict comments to her proposal. PiCo (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, PiCo, for keeping us on topic. After reading through the comments above, I think there's a fair consensus against Lisa's specific wording, though I think there have been a few alternate suggestions that merit discussion. I'd like to see this discussion move forward, and I think an important question to discuss is: "Does the current wording make it clear that the word 'myth' is being used in an academic sense?" Perhaps Lisa, or an uninvolved editor, could create a subsection for that discussion, where if editors disagree, they can discuss how to fix the sentence so that it is clear. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - My only reservation is about the clause "in the academic sense of the term." The page linked to by the term seems, to me, to use only the academic sense of the term, so the clause is seemingly redundant. Also, personally, I am myself unaware of the phrase "creation myth" being used in any sense but the academic sense, so the clause seems to almost be trying to dissociate itself from the relevant content, and I can't see a good reason for such extraordinary measures to be taken. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support. Suggested wording is clearer to a general audience, but too verbose. Is there a way we can say this in less words? Here's one suggestion, borrowing from the lede of creation myth:

The Genesis creation narrative is a creation myth (a symbolic narrative of how the world began) contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible).

I personally believe the Genesis narrative to be a myth in the colloquial sense of fictional as well, but would like to avoid further bloodshed over the issue, and be clear about the meaning of terms we use. Dcoetzee 03:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - There is abundant evidence—anthropological, archeological, geological, cosmological—that the Genesis 'creation narrative' is a myth in both the colloquial sense and the academic sense. Many religious people acknowledge that the account can only be regarded as 'allegory', which is essentially a euphemism for 'myth'. List of creation myths lists quite a few articles that no one minds referring to as myths. The assertion that the biblical creation myth can't be called a 'myth' is merely argumentum ad populum.

Wikipedia is not censored, and does not need to employ euphemisms to avoid upsetting people who believe something that is ostensibly not real. See also Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

In that case the theory of evolution should be included in your List of creation myths as it is even less supported by evidence—anthropological, archeological, geological, or cosmological—than the Genesis creation narrative and is in fact a far-fetched explanation of events leading up to life in the universe that denies scientific reality. (sorry about the off topic comment, but again, editors are only wishing to include context from only one side of the subject, which violates WP:NPOV). Willietell (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That is maybe the most ridiculous statement on this page and it's utter, absolute bullshit. There are literally dozens if not hundreds of articles published in peer reviewed journals every week that add to the immense amount of evidence for evolution. You are clearly out of your element here and need to take a biology class or 5. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some crap blog that can publish any sort of nonsense that its editors want. Find me a reputable encyclopedia on this planet that treats evolution as anything other than the well established theory that it is. We have many, many policies that demand evolution be treated as fact - we even have an article entitled Evolution as theory and fact. And just FYI, from someone who actually studies science, believe it or not but there is more physical evidence for evolution than there is for the theory of gravity. Please educate yourself on the topic if you're going to comment on it. N^oformation ^Talk 05:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The theory of evolution has absolutely no basis in scientific fact, and chose to believe it or not, it still regarded as a THEORY and not as scientific fact. The theory in itself is more religion than science and creates a conundrum of which came first, the chicken or the egg, or more scientifically stated, which came first RNA or DNA, both of which are dependent on the other for their very existence. In other words, you cant have RNA without the pre-existence of DNA, and yet RNA must be present for DNA to be formed. Those my friend, are scientific facts and they lead to the simple conclusion that life must have had an intelligent creator, rather than forming by accident. Willietell (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Your response indicates a fundamental misunderstaning of the meaning of theory as it applies to the scientific method. Specifically, a theory is not simply a vague untested concept with no evidence, but "A coherent statement or set of ideas that explains observed facts or phenomena, or which sets out the laws and principles of something known or observed; a hypothesis confirmed by observation, experiment etc." Compare theory of gravity, germ theory. Your flawed concept of the term theory in this sense is popular among creationists. The Usage notes at Wiktionary's entry for wikt:theory even states:

In scientific discourse, the sense “unproven conjecture” is discouraged (with hypothesis or conjecture preferred), due to unintentional ambiguity and intentional equivocation with the sense “well-developed statement or structure”. This is particularly found with reference to the “theory of evolution”, which opponents disparage with “it’s just a theory [conjecture]”, while proponents retort that in this context, theory means instead “well-developed, well-established”.

--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, you've had a very poor education and don't have a full grasp of the definition of the word "Theory". I could help you by defining it for you, but you will likely get greater benefit by actually looking it up in a dictionary. 68.32.70.131 (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be thoroughly confusing the informal use of the word theory with the formal one. Evolution is a theory the same way gravity is, unless you mean to suggest that gravity and the Earth revolving around the Sun are also "still regarded as a theories and not as scientific fact". This only serves to demonstrate that your arguments against usage of "myth" are similarly flawed, based on a similar misunderstanding of the meaning. - SudoGhost 07:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be thoroughly confusing! Gravitation is a law, not a theory. Go read the article linked to the redirect you linked. Newton codified it as a law. Prior to that, it was just a theory and there are theories on how it actually works, but gravity is itself a law. This only goes to show that your ideas are similarly flawed, based on a similar misunderstanding of the meaning. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Theories do not "become laws", a law is a fact, it just is. A theory explains the why and how. They are not mutually exclusive; there is a law of gravity, and a theory of gravity. If you're going to copy and paste someone else's comment to mock them, at least get your facts straight. - SudoGhost 07:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. (And I will here re-iterate that believers like to misuse the term theory by ignoring the scientific context of the term.) Additionally, if Walter were to read History of gravitational theory, he would see that the history of the theory did not end with Newton to be replaced with a law. Rather, the history of the theory extends right up to the more detailed modern understanding of gravity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is laughable, it's like being on a game show where you have to convince people from the 10th century that the earth isn't flat and that the sky isn't made of water, except you're playing the part of Sisyphus and the only contestant is George W Bush. Do you not realize that the entire field of biology makes no sense without evolution? DNA itself was discovered because two very brilliant men deduced from evolutionary theory that it must exist. Without evolution it could not have been predicted nor found. The two of you have no idea what you're talking about in any stretch of the imagination. Take one biology class if you're so in to biology, please. N^oformation ^Talk 09:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, few here have a true grasp of either the definition of the word "theory" or exactly what is and isn't understood regarding either Newtons law of gravity, which has application in Physics, or of the "theory of gravity", which is the subject of a multitude of debates in the scientific community, because gravity is still not understood and how it works is still a mystery. They are in fact, two separate issues and thus two separate topics. That aside, the topic was evolution, not theory. To bring the discussion to theory instead of evolution is like discussing a box containing some material, rather than the contents of the box, because you don't know enough about the contents of the box to sound intelligent and therefore discuss the container to detract from the true point of the discussion,(politicians do this all the time). The scientific facts are that the theory of evolution has no basis in scientific fact because it falls into a conundrum when trying to explain either the origins or the complexity of life. Evolution thus fails a basic litmus test and cannot answer basic questions, such as which came first, RNA or DNA, both of which are dependent on the other for their very existence and cannot exist without the other existing first. These basic facts necessitate intelligent design, not evolution, for the beginnings of life. Evolution therefore, will never be proven correct and will always remain a farfetched theory. Willietell (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as the specific RFC request, the former wording is suitable. The suggested alternative wording sounds more like a disclaimer with a provisional definition of the term. This is unnecessary, unless all creation myth articles are treated the same way.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That's actually a good point. I didn't think about WP:NDA here but it seems to loosely apply. N^oformation ^Talk 05:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• I of course oppose the suggested rewrite, which strikes me as amateurish (in the academic sense of the term...). I would note that the proposer seems confused that already by not entitling this article the Genesis Creation Myth, in keeping with our other creation myth articles, this already reflects compromise wording. So I support moving this back to Genesis Creation Myth for consistency with similar articles. Simply put, there is no way that someone who believes Genesis to be true (to whatever degree) can bend an encyclopedic treatment of this topic, given the weight of academic consensus, to their POV, although this article can certainly admit of the fact that plenty of people actually believe the story of Genesis. I know that this is an ongoing issue, but Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND for people who find the conclusions of a century of biblical criticism objectionable, nor can Wikipedia adopt a form of self-censoring prior restraint by shying away from representing that consensus based on the protection of sensibilities. And finally, Lisa, calling something a "violation of NPOV" because it doesn't conform to your personal views, while reflecting the academic literature, is itself an obvious violation of NPOV. Eusebeus (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I am indifferent to it, for the most part. I weakly oppose putting it in the body of the article. I weakly support putting it in a large footnote (i.e. [NOTE 1] style). I weakly consent to keeping it as is, with the wikilink, but think the page needs to be semi-protected if so, because at least one or two different IPs comes in here every day to change it from "myth" to "story" or "account". If the page is not semi-protected, I do believe clarification is needed, so I support a note, and am indifferent to/weakly oppose putting it in the article, but will lend my support to putting it in the article if consensus for a note can't be found. Summing up: 1. Keep it as-is and semi-protect the page, 2. Add a note, 3. Put it in the article, in that order of preference. I am moderately opposed to moving the article per WP:UCN. Note to above poster: "theory" means "demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt". In scientific discourse, "hypothesis" is used in the way you use "theory". St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 03:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Further Comment: I fully support and endorse BlackRaven's wording - The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth – the symbolic narrative of how the world began – contained in the first two chapters... (with or without "symbolic") as the best compromise solution yet suggested to keep the first sentence from being constantly vandalized, which is a strong sign in confirmation of my far-earlier suspicions - that a large amount of users who read the first sentence page are confused by it (a position I stopped holding, at the time, due to the simple and reasonable statement of another user, "do we actually have any studies that show the average person is likely to misunderstand the term"? - it seems now that many do, based on the levels of changes, especially when compared to the Law of Internet Content Creation. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 03:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think its a matter of people misunderstanding the term, but of people not liking the term. The same situation is present at the Age of the universe article with people constantly changing the same thing over and over, not because of a misunderstanding, but because it isn't consistent with their POV. - SudoGhost 04:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"Never attribute to malice what incompetence can explain" is the dictum I follow here with IPs.

• Comment The current wording seems fine, the link to creation myth avoids ambiguities. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The current wording doesn't comply with policy. It is not neutral to call all the other creation myths myths, but to call this one something else.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My comment was aimed at the original wording of it being called creation myth in line with what the academic sources do. "current wording" was a bad choice of words as the article had changed. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose addition of definition of "creation myth" in lede (serving to describe narrative) as unnecessary as long as wikilink to myth exists For the record, I think to title the article "myth" would not be appropriate, but when describing the narrative as a "creation myth," wikilinking the term is sufficient. It is acceptable to presume that the reasonable reader will follow a wikilink when in doubt. This should not be construed as an opinion about the article's title. -- Avi (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

So far:

• It seems everyone is happy to make some accommodation towards avoiding the possibility of offending readers;
• No-one seems to be particularly for the wording suggested by Lisa and endorsed by Walter Görlitz.
• Most people seem to agree that the proposal to rename the article to Genesis creation myth and specify what exactly we mean by the term creation myth in the first sentence so we very clearly satisfy WP:RNPOV. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I count:
  • For: Myself, Anupam, FoxCE, Noformation, Jess, Adjwilley, Walter Görlitz, Wekn (I think);
  • Against: Willietell, Wekn; JohnChrysostom
  • Unknown: SudoGhost, Black Falcon, PiCo, Dcoetzee (although he/she is proposing a similar solution, although I don't like the idea of parentheticals in the first sentence), Jeffro77)
• Some of the above people have made additional suggestions, for example linking creation myth in the first sentence, and this should be fine (but is an easy thing do once we're settled on the path forward).

So, perhaps the people who haven't yet commented on this proposal (or some slight alteration of it) could explicitly comment on it and then assuming most people are happy then we can move forward? 114.78.5.201 (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I am against renaming the article, I am not opposed to changing the lead, I prefer the suggestion offered up by Wekn reven , which is:

The Genesis creation narrative is the story of creation as presented in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible and Christian Old Testament.

I prefer this rendering because it solves the issue of POV spin that is leading to edit warring over the insistence of using the terminology creation myth while providing a link to this very page for expanded understanding by the reader. I think this a a fair and logical approach. Willietell (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop calling it a POV spin. It is not that editors on this talk page want it to be "myth" it is that the reliable sources call it a creation myth. NPOV means we report what the sources say and best represent the academic view. Can you not see that your statement is saying that the sources are POV and thus we should do what you think is fair instead? That's the very definition a POV violation. N^oformation ^Talk 11:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Per my statement here, my position should not be unclear. I support the previous wording rather than Lisa's suggested wording or the other suggestions. Additionally, WP:RNPOV states, "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings."--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, because that position splits the vote. My suggestion of renaming the article and using this (or similar) as a first sentence

The Genesis creation myth is the symbolic narrative found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis that describes how the world was created.

does not avoid using the term creation myth, can not be accused of deliberately offending readers (we spell out what we mean), brings this article into line with our other creation myth article titles and may even discourage random IP's from trying to drive-by remove the term creation myth from the article since it's built into the article title and would be therefore be a wasted effort. 114.78.5.201 (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

But it does explain it more fully than it is now. Three people did object to the use of "symbolic". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Are there reliable, academic sources that describe it as literal? If so then let's drop symbolic, if not then it has to stay per NPOV. N^oformation ^Talk 05:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I just drew the term symbolic from the creation myth article for consistency between our articles. I don't see why a biblical literalist would complain about the term - consider that you could argue (in a sense) that the theory of general relativity is symbolic of what we perceive to be reality; it's a representation. Similarly, the Genesis creation myth is symbolic, and if you choose that to be your representation of reality then so be it. There are no false connotations associated with the term symbolic, in my opinion, but if people really want to remove the term, then so be it, I'm not that worried. 114.78.5.201 (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I was only referring to the specific terms of the RFC regarding Lisa's suggested changes. I do not object to renaming the article to Genesis creation myth. Sorry for any confusion. On consideration, I don't have strong objection to the wording offered by 114.78.5.201, with the exception that symbolic should not be used, as some believers consider the account to be wholly literal.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I object to including the use of the phrase creation myth in the title as well as to the use of the word symbolic in the description of the Genesis account as BOTH are simply an introduction of more POV spin into the article. POV spin issues cannot be solved by the introduction of yet more POV spin. Willietell (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If I were a literalist, I would be more concerned about the connotations of the term story than the connotations of the term symbolic, but hey, each to their own. 114.78.5.201 (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with symbolic is that it contradicts those who hold a literal interpretation of the creation narrative. The word "story" isn't used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You're still acting as though it matters what the layman thinks about the subject, so apparently I have to point out again that this is not the case. NPOV is not determined by the opinions of the layman it is determined by expert sources. If every person on earth believed the sky way red but one single reliable source said it was blue our article would also call it blue. The reliable sources - IE the scholarly sources - do not speak of genesis literally and so per wikipedia policy that is what the article must represent. I get that you don't like the rules, so by all means try and change them; until that happens these kinds of statements hold no water. N^oformation ^Talk 09:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, since I wasn't mentioned in the IP editor's count above, I see no compelling reason for change and therefore support the status quo. We don't "vote" on these things, however; consensus cannot be found in numbers alone. Besides, this is still a very new RfC and many contributors may yet wish to weigh in. It seems premature to talk about "moving forward" just yet. Rivertorch (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone dig up the AFD on the Genesis creation myth article? It's listed in the history but as a red link. I'd be interested to hear the arguments in that case. N^oformation ^Talk 09:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The AfD was about the redirect, not the article itself (diff), which was then discussed here. - SudoGhost 10:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

On the statement at the beginning of this section, I conform more to Willietell's view, part of which states: "I prefer this rendering because it solves the issue of POV spin that is leading to edit warring over the insistence of using the terminology creation myth while providing a link to this very page for expanded understanding by the reader. I think this a a fair and logical approach." Wekn reven 10:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That would violate WP:RNPOV by doing exactly what Wikipedia policy says not to do, so it is not an option. - SudoGhost 10:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Escuse me, but:

On the statement at the beginning of this section, I conform more to Willietell's view, part of which states: "I prefer this rendering because it solves the issue of POV spin that is leading to edit warring over the insistence of using the terminology creation myth while providing a link to this very page for expanded understanding by the reader. I think this a a fair and logical approach."

Especially per: "Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at words to avoid." Not because readers may confuse the two meanings, but because even the formal meaning can be used offensively, and the word 'narrative' seems to more accurately describe what is found in chapters 1 through 2. Wekn reven 10:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree with Wikipedia policy, then discuss that on the policy talk page. But as per the policy you quoted, creation myth must be used, and should not be changed just to avoid causing offense. The formal meaning is used in a very specific way to avoid unnecessary offense, but that does not mean that possible offense is cause to remove what is reflected by reliable sources. - SudoGhost 10:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Wekn, this interpretation was explained as incorrect above. The clause is not saying that those words be used in their formal sense and not to cause offense, it's saying that those words should be used in their formal sense to not cause offense. The policy doesn't prescribe anything beyond using the words formally as a means to inhibit offense, it is exclusive to that one way of doing so. The rest of RNPOV specifically states that we do not omit academic terms for the sake of catering to a religious viewpoint. I can't see any justification for your proposal because it obfuscates a much used academic term and the only reason I can imagine it does so is to remove what some may consider an offensive element from the mix, and fortunately or not, that contradicts WP policy. N^oformation ^Talk 10:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is no policy justification for removing the term "creation myth" because it may offend the sensibilities of uninformed readers. First of all, Genesis 1 and 2 are routinely and non-controversially described as a "creation myth" in the scholarly literature. Second of all, readers come here to be informed, and the information that Genesis is a creation myth is essential information. Third of all, for readers who are still confused, a link is provided to the article on "Creation Myth" so as to clear up any misundrestandings.

We do not patronize uninformed or misinformed readers simply out of reluctance to hurt their feelings. As long as we are using the term in the scholarly sense, we are not responsible for how they feel. That is their own problem, and they'll just have to deal with it. It's a normal part of learning, and growing up. Keeping them in an informational ghetto does them no service, as far as the goals of WP are concerned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree completely with the above. Eusebeus (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

So do I. Well said. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

People can go round in circles all they like. The end of the matter is that the Genesis account is a creation myth, and per Wikipedia policy, that is exactly what the article should call it. Wikipedia is not censored. Secular sources call it a creation myth. Wikipedia is supposed to use the correct formal terms. End of story. If people don't like the policies, they need to discuss the policies elsewhere.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Its not a matter of liking a policy, its more a matter of not adhering to some people's opinionated interpretation of that policy. The policy was put in place to avoid just what certain editors are attempting to do, which is use scientific terminology to embed POV spin into an article and then stand back and hid their intentions behind the policy and plead innocence. The use of creation myth in this instance is introducing POV spin into the article in just such a manner, and it therefore in violation of WP:NPOV, like it or not. Willietell (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That dog won't hunt. Best shoot it now. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Creation myth is not POV, but it is only one term used to describe the event. And ideally, the term should be elaborated. Click-through obviously doesn't work. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"Opinionated interpretation"? The policy says: "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." The policy is extremely clear. The article should not avoid using the term myth, which is the formal term used in reliable sources. The wording in the article should not be modified "out of sympathy for a particular point of view". It is not sufficient reason to leave out the correct formal term out of "concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." The objections to the correct terminology are entirely against the policy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at Willietell's talk page archives. S/he has a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV and sourcing and has been accused in the past of POV pushing on Jehova's Witness articles. It's also been noted that when a source contradicts his world view he refers to it as a POV spin. What he needs to understand is that NPOV refers to editor opinions, and that sources are the only thing that matters on WP - NPOV means following what the sources say regardless of whether editors agree with it I fear, however, that this will fall on deaf ears since it's not the first time he's been told. Ultimately it's not really relevant though; no closing admin is going to consider arguments that misunderstand policy. N^oformation ^Talk 02:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

N^oformation ^Talk I don't know why you want to get personal and start slinging mud, this subject has little to do with me, my religious affiliation, or my talk page archives. It has to do with whether or not the inclusion of the phrase "creation myth" leads the reader to a POV interpretation, nothing else...I feel that it does, as do other editors here. Reasonable compromises have been offered. I have supported one that was offered by an editor who I have never had any past dealings with in an attempt to reach consensus. There is no need to attempt to engage in personal attacks of myself or or any other editors, as we need to direct our attention towards being constructive in editing out the POV spin introduced by "creation myth". Willietell (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, a great many of the issues that you consider to be "POV spin", in reference to statements from reliable sources, are quite directly related to your religious affiliation, as is the case for several editors who object to the proper academic term, creation myth.

If the purpose of the RFC is to determine whether the intro "leads the reader to a POV interpretation," then the RFC is redundant. The policy already explains that "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources out of ... concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings."--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I like this wording:
• "The Genesis creation narrative is the story of creation contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible)."

Per the policy (WP:RNPOV), it should be Genesis creation myth. The rest of this suggested wording is fine, and the piped link for creation myth gets around saying 'creation myth' twice in the same sentence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I would support to change it to that wording (or something similar). I would oppose a change in the title of the article. Zenkai _talk 18:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• • I'm fairly neutral on moving the article, though I doubt that a move will result an any long-term stability, since it seems to be a step away from compromise. I think the wording above would be a nice compromise, but I don't think a consensus will be reached if the discussion becomes any more polarized. I'm going to take this page back off my watchlist now, but I can be reached on my talk page if somebody has a question. Good luck! ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be kind of hard for drive by IPs to challenge it being in the lede if it were the title of the article though, and with a large RFC backing the move, arguing against it after the fact would kind of pointless. This may upset certain editors with a hard Christian POV, but it's the option that's most in line with policy and may have the best shot of stability. N^oformation ^Talk 00:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an encylopedia. It presents information from reliable sources. It's not a church journal. "Editors should not avoid using terminology ... out of sympathy for a particular point of view." We do not need to dance around the word myth with other euphemisms. People with "a hard Christian POV" will have to either accept it or refrain from reading the article. Cartoons depicting Muhammad are present at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy for much the same reason.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Having a "moving forward" discussion seems inappropriate in that the RFC is still open. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that talking of moving forward is likely premature after only two days of opening an RfC. Still, out of concern for there being only one viewpoint being represented in the moving forward discussion, I have participated, as I will in the attempt to improperly introduce POV spin into the name of the article by re-naming it to include the contested phrase to compound the error with a more is less attitude. The policy that is being used to insist that "creation myth" be used states:

"Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at words to avoid."

What is being ignored by certain editors is the first sentence, as the introduction of the word "creation myth" in the manner in which it is being employed, does not "take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." In fact, it uses them in such a way as to cause offense and mislead the reader by taking an opinionated stance, in the article, in support of viewing the Genesis Creation Narrative as a mythological story and therefore untrue, and seems to do so in a rather purposeful manner. It does not attempt to handle the view held by multitudes that the Genesis account is a true historical representation of creation, and thus puts Wikipedia in the position of taking sides, which constitutes POV spin and is therefore in violation of WP:NPOV. Willietell (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The quoted policy does not say "Do not use these words to avoid causing offense", which is what you are suggesting. Neither does the policy suggest that causing offense is a determining factor either, it in fact states the exact opposite. What it does say, is to use terminology in a formal sense to avoid causing unnecessary offense, not to avoid causing any offense. The article does this, reinforced by the wikilink explaining the meaning intended. - SudoGhost 15:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If its use wasn't causing unnecessary offense, the edit-warring would not be going on and we would not be having this discussion. Please don't pretend to be in denial of reality here. I am not suggesting that the policy says "Do not use these words to avoid causing offense", but the policy implies that editors should take care in the use of possibly inflammatory wording. Phrases such as creation myth, when discussing the beliefs held by millions, is certainly a possibly inflammatory phrase, as is indicated by the number of times it has been edited out, thus demonstrating that its use has not been carefully considered to avoid inflaming the reader. I submit that better alternatives are available and thus should be substituted to avoid the constant back and forth editing. This is only common sense and should be little cause for argument, but instead, some editors are unyielding in their support of the terminology in the article and now insist also in its incorporation into the title as well. Willietell (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Not true. The fact that it is edit-warred over at most suggests that it causes some offense, however this does not preclude the necessity of adherence to reliable sources. This is what is meant by unnecessary offense, that no offense is caused is not the priority, it is secondary to WP:RS. The number of adherents to a particular religion is not a factor in determining anything, and if the number of times it has been edited was an indication of what you suggest, then the both the Age of the Universe and Age of the Earth articles would have to state "6,000 years" instead of adhering to reliable sources, and we would have to remove any image of the prophet Mohammad from any article on Wikipedia. However, we do not do this, because while it is unfortunate that some people are offended by certain things on Wikipedia, this is not what guides our policies or our articles. - SudoGhost 16:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It does cause unnecessary offense. Zenkai _talk 05:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No it does not. You are confusing "unnecessary offense" with offense caused by adherence to Wikipedia policy. That offense is caused does not equate to "unnecessary offense", and simply being offended is not something that guides the policy. Will you also argue that images of Muhammad on Wikipedia cause unnecessary offense? Should those also be removed? - SudoGhost 11:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Getting back on track

I am simply appalled. This RfC was intended to sidestep the conflict, and instead, it is being used by both sides to launch renewed assaults to push their own POVs.

There are a number of issues that are being ignored here. First and foremost is Wikipedia policy. This is taken from WP:NPOV/FAQ#Religion:

An important note on using the term "fundamentalism": In studies of religion, this word has a very specific meaning. Wikipedia articles about religion should use this word only in its technical sense, not "strongly-held belief", "opposition to science", or "religious conservatism", as it is often used in the popular press. Take care to explain what is meant by this term in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. As religion is an emotional and controversial topic, Wikipedia editors should be prepared to see some articles edited due to seemingly minor quibbles. Stay civil and try not to take discussions too personally.

I've bolded the sentence "Take care to explain what is meant by this term in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." for emphasis. Wikipedia is about providing information. Not about reaching for some sort of academic or ideological purity. The suggestions above which remove the term "creation myth" entirely, relegating it to a hidden wikilink, are inappropriate. As is the ill-considered request move request below.

Secondly, some editors have argued that NPOV requires that articles have a uniform title. That if Ainu creation myth and Yoruba creation myth are called creation myths in the title, it would be POV to not use creation myth in the title here. This reflects a misunderstanding of NPOV. As stated, Wikipedia is not about achieving some sort of purity. It is about providing information. User:Jeffro77 suggested above that "The assertion that the biblical creation myth can't be called a 'myth' is merely argumentum ad populum." Wikipedia is for the populum. The goal should be readability. Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of Wikipedia readers understand the terms "myth" and "creation myth" as denoting fiction is ignoring reality.

Perhaps the particular edit I suggested in the RfC isn't the smoothest writing possible. That doesn't change the fact that the appropriate solution to this ongoing and incessant war is to (a) identify the first two chapters of Genesis as a "creation myth" in the lede, and (b) clarify -- right there, and not merely in a wikilink -- what is meant by "creation myth" in this context. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if we use “creation myth”, and I believe we should, better we should do so with an inline explanation. Informing readers is our goal. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Lisa here (deliberately?) confuses argumentum ad populum with some notion of argumentum pro populum. Wikipedia is indeed for the 'populum'. But it presents the views of reliable sources, not of 'the populum'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Again another section is started before the RFC has finished. Can people not simply wait till the RFC has finished so we can gauge where we are and what the consensus is? This section appears intended to sidestep the conflict, and instead, it is being used to launch renewed assaults to push their own POVs (paraphrasing your words).IRWolfie- (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to rename. This discussion is centered around the denotation of the words "narrative" and "myth". Neither argument successfully generates an encyclopedic name for the article. There are strong arguments from both sides, but there is no common agreement or acquiescence. I've offered a suggestion below, but as it stands a rename is not agreed upon so it will stand at "narrative" as is practice for a no consensus decision. Keegan (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Keegan (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Genesis creation narrative → Genesis creation myth – WP:RNPOV states that "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." The correct formal term for this article per that policy is Genesis creation myth. Jeffro77 (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support move. This will bring the article's title back in line with sister articles found at List of creation myths, none of which use similar euphemistic terminology to tiptoe around sensibilities regarding the academic term. Most of the recent argumentation here has revolved around where and in what context to place the phrase "creation myth", and I think that only a move back to the original name can stabilize this continuous conflict. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 07:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This move will not stabilize the conflict any more than it did the last time this was tried. And the titles of other articles are not relevant. If you go to List of creation myths, you can see that not all of them use that term in the title anyway. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

All of the articles about creation myths listed at List of creation myths have "myth" in the title; it's just that some of those links are to articles with subsections about a creation myth. The sister article titles are relevant because they use the proper notable academic term, which is the same one used in all of our primary sources here. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 23:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I support this per the discussion in the above RFC. In particular:

• The consensus is clear that this is a creation myth;
• The suggested title does not avoid using the term creation myth (as suggested by WP:NPOV);
• With respect to certain terms, taking care not to deliberately offend people is also mentioned in WP:NPOV, and the suggested article title allows us to eloquently construct a sentence that spells out exactly what we mean by the term creation myth so as to avoid that possibility, for example:

The Genesis creation myth is the narrative found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis that describes how the world was created.

• The suggested title brings this article into line with the article titles of our other creation myth articles (the current situation suggests the current article title is avoiding the term creation myth);
• Some people are concerned by drive-by censorship, and the suggested title may actually discourage random IP's trying to censor the term: since the term is built into the article title such a change would require discussion on the talk page. 114.78.5.201 (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Per the Manual of Style, the bold text should not contain a link. Therefore, to retain a rather imporant link to the academic concept of creation myth without saying it twice in one sentence, it should say something like The Genesis creation myth is the story of creation found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed the obvious, but after scouring through the relevant MOS guidelines I don't see anything about avoiding wikilinks in the leading bold text. Can you point to the relevant guideline page? Thanks. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 07:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to confuse the situation by using two different terms to refer to the same concept. After a quick scan I couldn't find anything in the MoS that prohibited a wikilink where I suggested (note that the article title is descriptive not proper), however something like

The Genesis creation myth is the narrative found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis that describes how the world was created.

might work too. However, it's probably not worth investing too much time in the details of the first sentence until after the Requested Move succeeds. 114.78.5.201 (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSLINK#Principles: "Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead."--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, if the title is considered merely discriptive rather a specific reference, note that WP:LEADSENTENCE states that "if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." If different words are used in the opening sentence for descriptive titles, they also do not need to be in bold (see the Mississippi River example at MOS:BOLDTITLE). However, I think in this case that the title is too specific to be considered 'descriptive' in that context.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we can follow what is done at Ancient Egyptian creation myths, where "creation of the world" is hyperlinked to creation myth, thus: The Genesis creation myth is the account of the creation of the world contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible).. That seems to flow nicely. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 08:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The redundancy in the lead of that article isn't really a prime example, but your suggestion seems to work.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

To reduce wordiness, and to reflect that the account is the creation myth, could we change it to: The Genesis creation myth is the creation narrative contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible).?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That could work as well—we can wait for further input from others to see what the community can agree on. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 08:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's some technical reason to avoid the wikilink in the bold text, I think it's ok to make an exception to the MOS guideline to deal with this dilemma. Every page of the MOS says it can have occasional exceptions, and the proposed sentence with the bold wikilink does seem to solve several problems at once. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support: WP exists to inform people about the scholarly consensus, not to patronize them. We use the language favored by the experts in the topic area, not the language uninformed and misinformed readers are comfortable with. Creating a "comfort zone" or "Christian Ghetto" does our readers no service. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WP exists to inform people. Full stop. Using a term that you know will be understood by most readers is a policy violation. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming you meant misunderstood. However, that isnot a policy violation, and is in fact specifically mentioned by Wikipedia policy as being something that is not a factor in determining the usage of said terminology. - SudoGhost 20:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I support this, but won't argue for it when the rocks start falling. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per WP:RNPOV and for consistency with other creation myth articles. Eusebeus (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Consistency is not Wikipedia policy. And WP:NPOV/FAQ#Religion clarifies WP:RNPOV, stating that the term should be explained for readers. Which cannot be done in the title, but can and should be done in the lede. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course it says that, since you added it into the FAQ: [1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I did no such thing. I added the paragraph noting that "myth" and "creation myth" are cases functionally identical to the case of "fundamentalism", which was already there. I'll thank you not to make false accusations. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support The fact that this article is not already entitled as a creation myth is a serious WP:NPOV issue. Firstly, our sources call it a creation myth without contention, and in fact the only opposition is based upon the personal feelings of a number of editors who hold WP:FRINGE views on the subject and believe that the word "myth" is offensive because it's not in line with a fundamentalist Christian POV. Secondly, WP:RNPOV specifically uses the word "myth" to demonstrate the policy; the policy itself reads that we should not shy away from using established academic terms in order to appease a segment of the population that may not agree with said terminology. As it stands, there have been no policy based arguments against using the term in the article nor against using it in the title. All arguments against it have been based on WP:IJDLI, with at least one editor claiming that the sources themselves are a "POV spin", which clearly misunderstands the purpose and meaning of WP:NPOV. N^oformation ^Talk 09:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The continued assertion that only a Christian POV explains wanting to clarify the term "creation myth" in the lede, rather than place it in the title, is demonstrably false. I'm not a Christian. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As a member of a religion in support of the creation myth found in the Hebrew Bible, your objection is semantically redundant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support as it reflects the name used by sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unfortunately the word "myth" has a negative connotation. The word "narrative" is actually NPOV and should be maintained. However hard to understand from a non-traditionalist point of view, there are people who believe that the first two chapters of Genesis reflect the actual order of creation (perhaps in shrouded language, e.g. one "day" denoting millions of years) and that it is certainly not a myth. This point of view would be underrepresented if we chose the term "myth" where the more neutral term "narrative" could be used. JFW | T@lk 11:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "There are people..." — just curious: how many? Where are they? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion. But myth is the correct term per policy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it actually is not. WP:RNPOV is clarified by WP:NPOV/FAQ#religion. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is. The "clarification" you added does not carry any weight, nor does it, even as written, preclude adherence to WP:RNPOV. The usage is correct and formal. - SudoGhost 20:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It’s true, there do exist “day-age creationists”; William Jennings Bryan was one. For we moderns who know that earth came into being not on day 3 but in year 9.2 billion, a literal seven-day creation is untenable. So, by some creative leaps, day-agers impose a reading of “age” upon Genesis’s plainly literal “days” (“And the evening and the morning were the ___th day”), vainly hoping that stretching out their duration would salvage their belief in Genesis being “literally” true. Instead, day-agers telescope sequence problems with Genesis’s order of creation by many orders of magnitude (like having terrestrial plants exist for millions of years before our sun). ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't know that it took 9.2 billion years. We assume it took that long. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Myth" is merely a term found occasionally in use in academic circles. "Story" would probably be the most commonly encountered characterization of "Genesis". The term "narrative" is perfectly acceptable as a characterization of the Genesis creation story as it is clearly understood by all—without the negative connotations of "myth". We should be mature enough not to be taking potshots at easy targets such as religion in our article-naming and in the words used in the leads of articles. The positioning of the term "myth" in the title or in the lead I feel is just a gratuitous slight to the broad area of religion, which makes an easy target. We should exercise restraint and use terms such as "narrative" or "story" which fail to express the negative opinions that "myth" inevitably conveys. Bus stop (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Curious: what makes this one different from every other myth? White people believe it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

See above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would bring skin color in to this discussion. It seems out of place, childish, rude, and incendiary. It makes me discount pretty much every argument you put forth. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't any of the things you mentioned. I am simply asking whether it is believed that a supposedly offensive term can be readily applied to the beliefs of black people, brown people, and Asians, but not when it potentially offends white people. It's a completely legitimate question. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It certainly sounds like very uncharitable, cynical, bordering on malicious, race-baiting to me. I would support using "narrative" for all of those titles described as such in reliable sources, but, in English, Judaic and Christian sources predominate, as do those for living religions, and those with more adherents. There's not ongoing discussion and debate about the Egyptian stories, nor about the many Hindu ones in English literature, from what I know. It has absolutely nothing to do with race, and I ask that you strike those two comments. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 19:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support the consensus is that this is a creation myth we should not use euphemistic expressions when there is a clear academic term in general use.Theroadislong (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - WP:RNPOV is clear on this, and the only arguments I have seen given against this are that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings, something RNPOV specifically says is not a determining factor in using such terminology. - SudoGhost 12:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:RNPOV is clarified by WP:NPOV/FAQ#religion. WP:RNPOV says that the term should be used, but WP:NPOV/FAQ#religion says that editors should "take care to explain what is meant by this term in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." That can't be done in a title; it can and should be done in the lede. And a wikilink is insufficient.

Something you just added to the FAQ doesn't make it a policy. However, even if it were, I very highly doubt that adding it to the title somehow makes it impossible to clarify the title of the article, and unless you can demonstrate the highly unlikely scenario where it would be impossible to clarify something, then that argument carries no weight. - SudoGhost 20:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not add the basic principle to the FAQ. Please don't make false accusations. I did add a paragraph noting that the one example given there ("fundamentalism") was not the only example, and that the same principle clearly applies to "myth" and "creation myth". - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nor have you demonstrated in any way that the term is not used in its formal sense, nor does the requested move preclude the ability to explain what is meant by the term. The FAQ is in no way an argument against the requested move, even with your recent addition taken into consideration, as nothing being proposed here in any way violates the policy, or the FAQ. - SudoGhost 23:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support per FoxCE. - Dank (push to talk) 12:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per the fallacy that assumes the word "myth" has ever been demonstrated to be "terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources". The word "story" is far more common. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Simply stating this without backing it up does not give any weight to your position, as reliable sources in the article do describe the article's subject as a creation myth. This is in addition to other numerous reliable sources found elsewhere that describe the article's subject as a creation myth. In fact, most of the sources I found describing it as anything other than this appeared to be Christian sources writing solely from a Christian point of view. On Wikipedia, independent reliable sources carry more weight than non-independent sources. An independent source has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective. I do not think it could be argued that a religious author writing about a religious subject has no significant connection to that religion, nor could it be said that they describe it from a disinterested perspective. Oddly, however, it was only the Christian viewpoints that described it as anything else, the sources I found that discussed the matter from a Judaic perspective had no issue describing it as a creation myth. - SudoGhost 13:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support It's clearly a creation myth, true or false, and although I understand this may offend some sensibilities we can't allow that to determine our articles. Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy says otherwise. See WP:NPOV/FAQ#religion. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia policy supports this change, the addition you recently added to the FAQ does not a policy make. - SudoGhost 20:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The only addition I made to the FAQ was an additional paragraph pointing out that what applies to "fundamentalism" applies just as much to "myth" and "creation myth". I added that for the logically impaired. Please don't make false accusations implying that the FAQ didn't already say that such terms should be clarified. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The above is still completely relevant, and your additional clarification does not alter this, this application has no bearing on the title, the article does have the ability to explain itself, after all. - SudoGhost 23:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I think it comes down to a question of neutrality, so it should be named in a way similar to other articles of the same vein: Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Ainu creation myth, Chinese creation myth, Fon creation myth, Japanese creation myth, Kaluli creation myth, Mandé creation myth, Mesoamerican creation myths, Sumerian creation myth, and Tungusic creation myth. Green Giant (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - for all the same reasons that were used before when this article was wrongly moved to Genesis creation myth. The word "myth" is a loaded term which has a very common colloquial meaning. Furthermore, I suggest people check out WP:NPOV/FAQ#Religion, where discussing the term "fundamentalism", it says "Take care to explain what is meant by this term in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." While this is speaking about the term "fundamentalism", the principle applies equally to the term "myth". Since it is impossible to explain what is meant by the term myth in a title, it should not be used here. The issue of other articles is a red herring, and entirely irrelevant. The use of a term in another article does not establish that it is appropriate here. Perhaps it is inappropriate there. The appropriate way to comply with the NPOV FAQ is to retain the current title of the article, define the Genesis creation narrative as a creation myth in the lede, and explain, also in the lede, that the term use being used in the academic sense, rather than the widely understood sense of "fictional creation story." - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That the word "myth" is a loaded term which has a "very" common colloquial meaning is not in any way a determining factor in its use in Wikipedia articles, as per WP:RNPOV. Wikilinking to the term at some point in the lede as previously suggested also solves any issue of not explaining the meaning behind the term, and even if this is not the best solution, it is incorrect to say that it is "impossible" to explain what is meant, as this is the entire point of any Wikipedia article, to explain and inform. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to ignore reliable sources and instead cater to a select few individuals out of concern that they may be offended, especially when that offense is not based on what is presented, but rather a misunderstanding of the terminology. - SudoGhost 15:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding terminology (or facts or images or anything really), as you suggest, out of concern we may offend someone is not an ideal this project upholds. For more details you can read the policy pages WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED that directly address this issue. However, as editors it is not our intention to deliberately offend our readers and we do recognise there are situations where some decorum on our part can and should be used, which brings us to your second point (which is largely irrelevant to choosing an article title) ...

No-one here objects to explaining in this article what we mean by the term creation myth, and how exactly we can do this has been discussed at length in this RM and the above RFC. We can realise both ideals (neutrality and decorum) by correctly naming this article as Genesis creation myth and then expand the definition of creation myth in the very first sentence. As I mentioned, there are numerous suggestions of how to do this in this RM and the above RFC. Using phrases like "in the academic sense of the term" as you suggest is at best poor style and at worst hopelessly unprofessional. 110.32.3.142 (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

'Strong Oppose' means nothing more than simply 'Oppose', particularly when it is not backed up with a valid reference to policy, and especially when the editor has—during the dispute—modified a policy-related article to which they refer.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - there is a large body of theological sources who actively question the "correct" definition of the term "myth". There is a large body of theological sources that strenuously oppose the application of "myth" as a genre to this particular work. There is a well documented history of the use of "myth" as a polemic and POV term. (You can find this linked from my userpage). All of this is proven evidence of a widespread viewpoint held by many theological sources to whom this topic is significant. However, all of this evidence of a significant point of view has been brushed aside or ruled "inadmissible" by select wikipedians who happen to take take the opposing view. This cannot be neutral conduct. Wikipedians are not supposed to set themselves up as smarter than reliable sources, or demand POV "litmus tests" for what they consider "reliability" for purposes of establishing that a viewpoint exists. If we make no mention at all of the massively documented opposition to this classification, then we are only telling HALF THE STORY and thereby doing the truth a disservice by pretending the other half does not exist or is unworthy of mention. We can do better. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

where is this large body of, presumably mainstream and reliable, theological sources you mention? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of the prominent theologians who have argued for one reason or another that this narrative does NOT fall into the genre of "myth" include: Bernhard Anderson, G. Ernest Wright, James I. Packer, James Orr, G. C. Berkouwer, Claus Westermann, Robert Jenson, René Girard, etc. etc. Only if we can decalre the opposing POV "right", can we declare this POV "wrong". How is doing so "neutral"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Granting you your list of sources for minute, there are no constraints on this article discussing a conflict of genre. The reality is though that the mainstream point of view is that this material is a creation myth. Avoiding this in the article title is not neutral, it is giving undue weight to your list of sources. 110.32.3.142 (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose- I feel that to change the title to include the phrase creation myth is at a minimum, inflammatory. I think it violates [[2]] as well as [[3]] and becomes a title that in and of itself will be a point of contention, and is therefore ill advised. Willietell (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Lisa appears to use what was written in the FAQ as the basis for her argument. This seems disingenuous considering she added the paragraph cited herself: [4] IRWolfie- (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty bad form. Eusebeus (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Very disturbing indeed. Like pissing on the campfire. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort. The paragraph at WP:NPOV/FAQ#religion on "fundamentalism" was already there. I added the paragraph about "myth", but did not cite that here, specifically because I was the one who added that. If you think there's a distinction to be made between "fundamentalism", which has a scholarly definition and a connotation which differs, and "myth" (or "creation myth"), about which the same can (and has) been said, you should make that case, rather than violating WP:AGF. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing Creation myths and you referenced the text which states "that editors should take care to explain what is meant by this term in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader.". This text is present in the section on creation myths. In a discussion on creation myths in the article did you expect people to look at the section on fundamentalism, or the section on creation myths that you added just an hour before posting? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Step away from consensus (indeed, coming full-circle from established consensus, which has been a war of POV-pushers from the beginning: first, "Creation according to Genesis", then "myth", then "narrative", next we'll have "Beginning of the Universe", and after that, "Bullshit fable"), unnecessarily inflammatory and contentious, not adhering to WP:UCN (as many, if not most, of the sources on this page use the term "narrative" - the use of "myth" or "narrative" depends on whether one is using something written by a comparative religionist/mythologist or Biblical scholar, and Biblical scholars tend to write the most, and most of the reliable sources, on Biblical topics). I'm sure I listed a few more objections up there, so just hit CTRL+F and type my name in. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 19:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support move - There is not only the question as to whether it is referred to as a "creation myth" in Biblical studies, but also the question as to whether it is called a "creation myth" in terms of studies of creation myths, like in te Encyclopedia of Creation Myths here, where it quite obviously is. Also, I note that there are several individuals who today worship in the tradition of Norse mythology (see Germanic neopaganism) and old Greco-Roman mythology, as I remember a piece on the BBC during the Athens Olympics about practitioners of the old Greco-Roman religion, which is currently illegal in Greece. There are also several revivals of old Egyptian religion. However, we do describe their beliefs under the general heading "mythology." I can see no particular reason why this individual case requires different treatment. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

John, I can indeed point out a bona fide distinction. It seems the only relevant statements we have from the practitioners of these tiny neopagan revivals, are like those of Asatru, which specifically states that they officially consider the Norse sagas of Thor, etc. to be "myths" (meaning NOT historically or literally true, btw) and that they specifically do *not* object to this characterization. See the distinction? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

While that does address one point of contention, it does not address the other. Yes, I acknowledge that there are any number of people who argue in some or all cases that some "myths" are true. However, as has been pointed out immediately below, existing policy specifically includes the word "myth" as an example in the relevant policy, and I can see no reason yet given why that policy should not apply in this case. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I've seen only three arguments against this proposal: 1) The claim that readers may confuse the formal and informal sense of the word. This is explicitly handled in WP:RNPOV, using "myth" as the example of policy. 2) The claim that the literature most often avoids "creation myth". This assertion has not been adequately supported with sources. SudoGhost presented a long list of sources using creation myth. As Dougweller points out, many of those avoiding "creation myth" are written from a Christian POV exclusively, not in a dispassionate, purely academic style. 3) The claim that the term "creation myth", even when written in an academic sense, is needlessly offensive to some readers. Per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:RNPOV, this argument is explicitly against policy. Lisa's poor behavior is an additional cause for concern. Based on the remaining arguments presented, it appears consensus supports the move, and I see no reason not to concur with that consensus.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose for now. I don't think the rename brings us any closer to solving the problems at hand. I still think a consensus could be reached by slightly tweaking the wording of the opening sentence. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, changing the name is only going to compound the problem and lead to additional edit warring. The lede needs to be repaired to eliminate the questionable wording. Willietell (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Genesis 1-2 is by definition a "creation myth." The Christian mythology article explains the traditional attitude that Christianity has sacred "narratives" while other (esp. polytheistic) religions have false "myths." As long as Wikipedia uses "creation myth" for all cultures and religions except one, it will remain inconsistent and religiocentric. Keahapana (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It might be worth adding that section to this page. N^oformation ^Talk 00:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support move. We should not give Christian creation myths special treatment; article titles should be consistent. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Per Jess et al. The "narrative" is most accurately defined as but one of the many "creation myths" in existance. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose until I can see an itemized list that myth outnumbers narrative in use, not only academic. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What sort of request is that? You must realise that such a list is not possible, or is that the point here? And what is this "not only academic" statement? But it turns out you can be offered something even better - a reliable source claiming exactly what everyone here for the move has been saying. Per someone else's comment above: in George Every's book Christian Mythology (page 22), he notes that in contemporary Christianity myths in the Bible would now be admitted by nearly everyone including probably all Roman Catholics and a majority of Protestants". He goes on to list this creation myth as an example. Furthermore, the Encyclopedia Britannica (the closest thing to a comparable publication to Wikipedia you can ask for) also labels this a creation myth. 110.32.3.142 (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a perfectly reasonable request. The academicians seems to be disturbing the greatest amount of fecal matter, but if you'd rather just limit it to academicians not already listed here. You see, I fear that the list we have is incomplete because those who may not use the term would likely be already excluded. It's not because they're bad authors, only that they offer a contrary view. We already know Waltke's position and I'm sure that there are many others. So perhaps a better way to have phrased the term would have been "academicians from religious studies rather than religious studies or other branches of anthropology". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I get 361 post-1980 English-language Google Book hits for "genesis creation myth", 596 for "genesis creation narrative", 1,790 for "genesis creation account", and 2,340 for "genesis creation story". Doukhan's The Genesis Creation Story: Its Literary Structure (1978) is a widely cited scholarly work on this subject. The word "myth" may suggest the beliefs of a dead religion, as in "Greek myths" and so forth. It seems that the overwhelming majority of writers on this subject wish to avoid suggesting that Genesis is part of such a belief system. How can we justify "myth" when there are at least three other names that are more common? Kauffner (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. "Biblical creation story" OR "Biblical story of creation" looks like the winner as far as common name goes, with 5,900 post-1980 hits. Kauffner (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#What_a_search_test_can_do.2C_and_what_it_can.27t and WP:GNUM. WP:WEIGHT also applies here - higher numbers doesn't mean higher quality. Your argument also doesn't address the fact that "myth" is one term used in WP:RNPOV to demonstrate the policy. N^oformation ^Talk 07:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Using search results in this way in general is not a reliable way of determining what is actually the common name for something. In particular, those who believe the Genesis creation myth to be literally true are a vocal minority, and as such, the search results do not accurately reflect usage by academics, or by society in general. For similar reasons, arguments about narrative being a better common name are also flawed, because they do not reflect a dispassionate neutral view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - So far, three eighths of those responding have opposed the move, in most cases directly contradicting the policy at WP:RNPOV. One attempts an equivocation fallacy regarding the use of fundamentalism. One employs a slippery slope argument about some eventual hypothetical name for the article. Another goes policy shopping in an attempt to claim that the policy-supported title is not neutral. It is clear that there will never be a complete consensus on the matter; however, the majority of editors are in favour of complying with the relevant policy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - yes, it is a myth, but what's the reason for renaming the text? What is wrong with the word narrative? Is it wrong to call this biblical text a narrative? Should all old literature be renamed according to the same lines? I think fiction should be treated as fiction. Suédoise (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia strives to be accurate and neutral, "neutral" meaning that we follow what the sources say. The sources call it a creation myth, so that's what we're supposed to call it. If you really want to know why we should change the name of the article then start reading at the top of this RFC and make your way to the bottom. It's been explained in depth by multiple editors. N^oformation ^Talk 21:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Noformation—"myth" is a characterization and it is gratuitous. The term "myth" strongly debunks veracity. As an encyclopedia we should aim to maintain an agnostic orientation to material involving beliefs other than scientific or more objective beliefs in general. Some segments of academia indeed may be anti-religious. An encyclopedia need not follow in the faulty footsteps of some segments of academia. We have adequate language in the more bland terms "narrative" and even "story". We are writing for a broad spectrum of readers. Arguably even academia should be avoiding value-laden terms. There is nothing special about the term "myth". It is not as if some additional piece of information were conveyed by the word "myth" as opposed to the more bland terms "narrative" or "story". Furthermore—there is a proper place for the introduction of the term "myth" to this article—that is in the body of the article. We are discussing the proper placement of the term; not whether or not it should appear in this article. My argument is simply that it does not belong in the title. I don't even think the word "myth" should be found in the lead of this article. I think an explanation of the use of the word "myth" in relation to the material treated in this article should be introduced in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It is specifically theologians who are using the term myth, not a bunch of scientists. Again, your opinion about how things ought to be is not relevant - you're ignoring the fundamental pillar of WP when you say that we should ignore what the sources are saying and do what bus stop thinks is right (or anyone else for that matter). I recognize your name so I know you've been here long enough to have read NPOV, and I'm guessing you've been here long enough to know that NPOV literally means that we are neutral as editors towards what the sources say. You may think it's gratuitous - this is your opinion. You may think that WP should eschew objective statements in favor of agnosticism but this is also your opinion. Your opinions are not in line with the policies of this encyclopedia. N^oformation ^Talk 22:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Theologians are in the department of biblical studies while these people are in the department of religious studies and are religious anthropologists. They are studying people not God. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Either way, they are still the ones whose opinions are assigned weight; not yours, not mine, not Bus Stop's or anyone else here. N^oformation ^Talk 22:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Noformation, I don't question that it's a myth, I question why it is not a narrative. You have to describe why it is wrong to call it a narrative before we start to discuss what to call it instead. You want the change, so you are the one who should explain this. So please explain: Why is it wrong to call it a narrative? Suédoise (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Jess, Jeffro and others above that there appears to be consensus to move this article based on the strength of arguments put forward. And surely I cannot be the only editor who feels somewhat uncomfortable that this discussion reflects Wikipedia's Systemic Bias. Why should the Judeo-Christian creation myth by given special exemption over a standard naming practice found elsewhere, as noted above by many editors? If this (straightforward) move should not be achievable after this, I suggest we find a better venue for the discussion, especially since it has ramifications for a host of articles (Islam, Indigenous American belief systems, etc…). Further, since interest in and study of creation accounts are often undertaken comparatively, are we not artificially separating this debate? Perhaps we should set up a wider RFC and solicit feedback from editors who work across all of our articles on different creation myths. If we cannot form consensus here for naming Genesis a creation myth, it will only be a result of an accumulated POV grounded in biblical belief; that seems unacceptable given the larger (and uncontroversial) naming conventions we apply to articles that detail the equivalent myths of other cultures and belief systems. Eusebeus (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves can last up to 7 days though I don't doubt this will be closed before that. Consensus seems pretty strong for the move and I'll be surprised if that's not how it's closed. Still, we need to be patient and allow for community input. N^oformation ^Talk 10:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia's Systemic Bias that of Western, well-educated, atheist or agnostic, white males? Alexa says this site "severely over-represents" those with postgraduate degrees, and to indulge in a bit of WP:OR, most studies linking religion and education have found that those with postgraduate degrees are less religious. So, may it be the risk isn't that this is going to be "a bunch of Biblical POV", but that it will reflect the systemic bias of the levels of over- and under-representation of certain cohorts? Note: both sides are currently attempting argumentum ad lapidem and proof by assertion (repeatedly thumping on a guideline/policy is the same as repeatedly quoting a Biblical verse, for analogy, and repeatedly misinterpreting it is, mutatis mutandis, the same). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 21:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It's really not the same. For one, we follow policy on WP but we don't follow the bible. So while quoting Revelations as an argument to delete an article would go nowhere, appealing to WP:N would go somewhere. Secondly, I'll quote from WP:CONSENSUS "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense", emphasis mine. The argument for changing the title to "myth" is based entirely on policy, sourcing and dare I say common sense (it is, after all a creation myth) and to say that it hasn't been explained and just asserted blindly is just false. N^oformation ^Talk 21:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Argumentum ad auctoritas is argumentum ad auctoritas whether you're quoting the Bible or a Wikipedia guideline. As far as that goes, I recall reading a policy/guideline/essay that people quote with authority as "consensus can change": Wiki is [consensus] as Wiki does [the RS consensus]. Type the various terms, "myth", "narrative", "account", etc. in to Google Book or Google Scholar for a rough academic consensus. And, to clarify, my essential thrust of meaning in saying both sides are making proof by assertion, is that each camp is talking over the other. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 23:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly not trying to talk over anyone and I apologize if that's how I'm coming off. I will admit to a certain level of frustration on this page; most of the oppose votes are completely ignoring that we have an established policy that deals specifically with this situation and instead users are asserting their opinions on the word "myth." NPOV is something that should be taken very seriously and it just doesn't seem to matter to people while in some other cases there is a demonstrable misunderstanding of the policy coupled with a resistance to being corrected on said misunderstanding. Regarding google, another editor brought this up and I responded with Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#What_a_search_test_can_do.2C_and_what_it_can.27t and WP:GNUM. For a variety of reasons raw search engine results are not good indicators of notability or quality. I think I miss your meaning on WP:CCC, can you elaborate please? N^oformation ^Talk 23:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support and if this doesn't get moved, maybe we can move all other creation myths to creation narrative? There is no reason to make a distinction for christianity here.--Zoeperkoe (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Each creation story should under its most common English-language name. These are not things that naturally match. I see no advantage to giving them artificially matching names. Kauffner (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  The bone of contention seems to me to be the amount of usage in the English language as a whole of each term. Unfortunately, we deal in the English language, and the greater majority of people using that language are Judeo-Christian-Islamic-Bahai to some degree or other, and there are comparatively small but significant groups within that tradition which take this story as fact. That may have, in many cases, caused writers of popular works, particularly of a religious kind, to perhaps have chosen the religiously more acceptable (to fundamentaists) word "narrative" or similar to "myth". Unfortunately, I am not sure whether we should take the possible bias of popular authors, including popular theology works and such, as being a significant factor in determining which words we use here. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose due to the nature of the word "myth" as the term "narrative" seems to be a better, more neutral term than "myth" both in its academic usage and that in popular culture (although the latter does not matter, anyways). It seems that the academic term "narrative" is widely used secularly both by secular scholars and those with religious ties and without -- I cannot say the same for "myth", which suggests that the term's usage amongst scholars is influenced predominantly, though not necessarily always, by bias. Wekn reven 15:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, you don't have to call it a myth to know this is a mythical story. Narrative is a more neutral term, so let it be. Also, when you talk about a 'myth' you usually refer to a more orally transitioned story through the generations, but the Bible is written literature. Suédoise (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I've misunderstood you... but your argument appears to be that the term creation myth is both accurate and verifiable, but we shouldn't include it because we should expect readers to know it's a "mythical story" without us saying so. We don't just make assumptions about our reader's knowledge like that. Our aim is to comprehensively describe the topic to someone unfamiliar with the subject. Regarding your last point, a creation myth is not necessarily oral, as the article describes. If you're talking about its informal use, then WP:RNPOV applies.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, everyone who knows even a little about Christianity (and most people do, regardless of their own believes, as it is the most widespread religion in the world) knows that the Bible is the holy text of Christianity. Everyone who knows something about religions, knows that religious texts of this kind include myths and parables which are not meant to be taken literary. So you don't have to point out that it is a myth. The Bible is great literature and holds many good moral standards (and some acctually not so good) but noone takes the Book of Genesis as a description of something that acctually happened. The tale of Adam and Eve is a moral parable. So why do you have to point out that it is not to be taken literaly? And more importantly, as you are arguing for a change: What, exactly, is wrong with the word narrative in this context? Suédoise (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - as per David Adams Leeming (2005). The Oxford companion to world mythology. Oxford University Press. p. 50. ISBN 978-0-19-515669-0..

And think that "The Genesis creation myth is the narrative found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis that describes how the world was created." is a good opening ... Moxy (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - 'Myth' would be a fine word if it weren't loaded. Honestly, I think 'tale' or 'story' would be more NPOV than 'myth' or 'narrative' because it explains precisely what it is in an NPOV manner. Toa Nidhiki05 20:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you read over WP:RNPOV which specifically states not to avoid using established academic terminology and specifically uses "myth" as the example to demonstrate the policy? N^oformation ^Talk 20:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Noformation—I also find a guideline concerning Contentious labels. I find reference made to "value-laden labels". Aren't we discussing whether or not the word "myth" is a "value-laden label"? Bus stop (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We're not discussing the word "myth". We're discussing "creation myth". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. However, policies take priority over guidelines, and it has already been said that there is an extant policy, WP:RNPOV, which specifically includes the word "myth" in its text, seemingly discussing exactly this sort of situation. John Carter (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The MOS doesn't trump NPOV, especially as NPOV explicitly discusses the word myth, and the MOS does not.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Beyond that, saying that we shouldn't use a word used by the majority of sources because editors think it's loaded is the exact opposite of NPOV. The whole point of our policy on neutrality is that editor opinion is not relevant, only the sources matter. If the sources called it a jkabndjfnj then we call it a jkabndjfnj. N^oformation ^Talk 21:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Noformation—"jkabndjfnj" would be preferable to "myth". Unfortunately we are missing a policy that might caution us against using gratuitously inflammatory language when other perfectly adequate language is available. Bus stop (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Which policy are you referring to, exactly? The page you pointed out before, dealing with contentious labels, is a part of the Manual of Style, and all of the MOS is a guideline. There does seem to be one policy involved, WP:NPOV, and policies take priority over guidelines. If you were referring to some other policy page, it would be very useful if you indicated exactly which one. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You presented a guideline based on the manual of style, RNPOV is policy and NOTCENSORED is a policy. It is not gratuitously inflammatory language, it is the language used by theologians. It is not our job as editors to second guess sources and decide by community fiat what is and isn't "appropriate," it's our job to be neutral to the sources. "jkabndjfnj" would be preferable to you, but you or I don't matter - the sources matter. N^oformation ^Talk 21:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. "Myth" doesn't mean "fiction", and "creation myth" is by far the common usage in academic sources. Powers ^T 21:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too many people here are basing their arguments on the wrong policy. WP:RNPOV is not aimed at article titles, but rather at how we deal with religious topics in the text of the article. As long as we don't shy away from a correct and neutral use of the academic term "creation myth" within the text of the article, the title should remain as it is. And there is no good reason to change the title based on current policy. For every non-adherent who chooses to describe the story in terms of mythology, you will find adherents who defend the position that the story should be labeled as or divinely inspired history. Narrative is about the most neutral and natural term you can find in common usage in reliable sources, from academic circles both within Christianity and without. No one argues that it was not written as narrative (at least no one who has bothered to study the text), but plenty argue that it was not written as myth. Neither term is going to be totally neutral, because it's not an inherently neutral topic. Ἀλήθεια 01:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:RNPOV applies to the title as much as the rest of the article. We do not gain the ability to "avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources" just because it is in the title. Almost every source I encountered that described it as anything but a creation myth was a reliable sources writing solely from a literal Christian POV, not as an independent reliable source, which on Wikipedia does not take precedence over independent sources. Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint. Also, a very quick search on Gbooks shows that there are indeed groups of people and reliable sources that both argue that Genesis (either parts of it, or as a whole) is not written as narrative. - SudoGhost 10:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Very strongly oppose. This has been discussed a lot already. "Narrative" was decided on. It is neutral. Period. End of discussion. Zenkai _talk 02:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutrality is not the only criterion to be considered; we must also consider what terminology is used in a preponderance of sources. Powers ^T 02:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:CCC, and it appears it has. It would be helpful if you advanced an actual argument against the proposal, since empty votes don't carry any weight. Besides which, "neutrality" means properly reflecting the weight of sources, and the sources use "creation myth" quite a bit.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Quantify, in percentage, "quite a bit". What percentage exclusively use creation myth, exclusively creation narrative, and what percentage a mix of both. Without that, "quit a bit" is just a weasel words. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to look through the list of sources presented above by SudoGhost. I referenced that list in my support, as have others. "Percentage" means very little, and is a poor reflection of weight, for much the same reason as google hits.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Read as: "no, we'd rather throw around weasel words than actually quantify our statements". Percentage is a great way to quantify it, but rather than wikilawyer your way around it, find your own way to quantify its use. Until then, "quite a bit" is weasel words. In short, the list that the cabal have limited this article to may use the term frequently, but they don't reflect all academic use and likely not the majority of academic use. Secular sources may prefer the term, but theological sources don't. I can show you secular bias in acadmic work, but you'll probably come up with some source that you prefer to discredit it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, the best I can do is provide you with sources. We've done that. A lot of them. Some of them are very high quality. I've presented sources, policies, and explanations, but all you're doing is throwing around assertions about academic bias and secular conspiracies. I'll have no part in that. If one really high quality source says that the prominent academic view is one thing, and a couple low quality sources say something else, we go with the high quality source. We do that even though it's "outnumbered" by the low quality ones. That's why a percentage is useless. I don't know where you're expecting me to come up with a percentage anyway, so the request is ridiculous. Why don't you give me a percentage, and source it please. Until then, please stop accusing me of wikilawyering, and bad faith, and belligerence. It's getting really old. I've discussed my reasons in depth, provided sources and policies readily and civilly any time I've been asked. That you disagree with other editors is no reason to treat them poorly. Please give legitimate reasons for rejecting the sources presented, or move along.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your best isn't good enough to remove the weasel from the words. That's just Wikipedia for you.

I notice that Waltke's material still hasn't been incorporated. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

We do not go by "percentages", they aren't an indication of the reliability or the independence of the source used, nor do they allow for weight to properly be expressed. You're asking for something that is less than worthless on Wikipedia. As for the misguided weasel word assertion, "weasel word" on Wikipedia applies to vague statements without attribution in which readers cannot properly assess the statement for themselves. As these sources have been provided, they aren't weasel words just because you disagree. - SudoGhost 16:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Opppose per Til, Ἀλήθεια, etc. "Narrative" is not incorrect and has a significantly less negative connotation. Whilst the denotation of "myth" in its secondary sense is applicable; common usage of the term is for its primary purpose which would create an appearance of WP:NPOV. With regard to WP:RNPOV, it is not the case, in my opinion, that "myth" would serve better than "narrative" especially is creation myth itself is defines as "A creation myth is a symbolic narrative…" in its wiki article. As the terms are equivalent, there is no loss for using "narrative" over "myth" and only gain. -- Avi (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I wonder if those who Oppose (or Strongly Oppose or [sigh] Very Strongly Oppose) on the supposed ground that myth is 'not neutral' or 'loaded' feel just as strongly about all the other creation myth articles that have this same label. It is the correct term, and the policy (WP:RNPOV) explictly states that the correct academic term should be used. Additionally, though some people might be offended, the correct use of the term—again, per the policy—is not unnecessary offense. Editors should also remember this is not a vote (and very strongly opposed doesn't count for extra points). It is valid arguments that will determine the wording, not simply the strength with which people feel 'opposed'. So far, there is no compelling policy-based reason to not use the correct academic term, consistent with comparitive articles about creation myths.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• So far, there are no compelling arguments against the use of the word narrative. What is wrong with narrative? Myth might be right, but if narrative is equally right there is no reason for a move. Suédoise (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That the usage has to be generalized - we cant have some religions have narrative and others myth.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of right it's a matter of sourcing. NPOV states that we as editors make decisions based upon a preponderance of the sources, not on our opinions. You may think that narrative and myth are equivalent but until you're a theologian or religious anthropologist and you publish regarding their equivalency your opinion is irrelevant (as is mine, as is that of other editors). N^oformation ^Talk 02:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment again Lisa appears to be trying to bypass the consensus that is building here by changing the policy: [5]. More comments are welcome. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: I have seen reliable sources use both "narrative" and "myth" to describe the Genesis creation stories. My recollection is that I've encountered the words "account", "cosmology" and "story" more often than either the current or proposed titles in my own reading (and that applies as well to other creation stories). Usages from good sources range across the board, and I would be wary of claiming any consensus for a single term. I just do not see the proposed change as much of an improvement, while agreeing that the current title is less than satisfactory, and thus my weak oppose. • Astynax ^talk 10:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. WP:RNPOV has been been cited many times in this RM, but this guideline has nothing to do with titling, and certainly doesn't override WP:COMMONNAME. As far as the references to mythology books go, this is a narrow field compared to Bible studies. In a Bible studies context, this subject is just "Creation". See Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary (p. 316), Creation: a reader, Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, Browning's A Dictionary of the Bible, and The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. So the article should be titled Creation or Creation (Biblical). Kauffner (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Policy does not cease to apply when a title is considered. WP:NPOV, being one of the 5 Pillars, does indeed override WP:COMMONNAME, however this is not relevant here. As far as the "Bible studies context", the article's subject is not "Genesis from a Christian perspective", or "Genesis as told in the Bible". The article's subject is not solely a Christian one, and as such we cannot name it as if it were. We especially cannot name it by only using primary sources; ignoring those that are independent of the article's subject would be a massive WP:NPOV violation. - SudoGhost 12:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to be any particular religion to study the Bible. In fact, Jews are quite prominent in this field. Perhaps they call it "Torah studies," but it is the same field of study. They publish in Biblical Archaeological Review or whatever alongside the Christian scholars. I didn't cite any primary sources. The "subject is not...'Genesis as told in the Bible'"?? Do you realize that Genesis is a book of the Bible? It is not generally available as a separate item. Kauffner (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure it's "available as a separate item". "The Bible" is a collection of books, which, since the advent of the printing press, tend to be bound together in Christian usage. But that doesn't make it a single indivisible whole. Guettarda (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The Christian Bible is not the only source in which Genesis exists, so we cannot base the title off of what adherents to one selection of one branch of traditions call it. By "Genesis outside of the bible" I was referring to the Christian Bible, which is what most people (WP:COMMONNAME) mean when they say the Bible. Zondervan is a primary source, and certainly not an independent one on Biblical topics. "Creation" is not the WP:COMMONNAME, especially by independent reliable-sources. - SudoGhost 13:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The same issue arise with the word "Genesis". In Hebrew, there is another word for it. So in that sense it can be considered a Christian word. But as with "Bible", it doesn't normally imply any particular POV. It is just a name, and it is used by people with with a wide variety of religious perspectives. Britannica has an article entitled "Hebrew Bible," so the use of this word is not limited to a Christian context. You seem to be confused as to what a primary or independent source is, or least have a rather unique spin on this issue. The sourcing rules don't relate to titling anyway. Kauffner (talk) 20:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarification While I understand your point, it's a bit confused. "Genesis" is an English word. The work it refers to has different names in other Western (a.k.a. Christian-influenced) languages. Some are similar and some are not. However in Hebrew it goes by a different name as well, בְּרֵאשִׁית‎ ,and its transliteration is used by adherents of Judaism who speak those languages. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I am well aware of what an independent source is, and a religious author writing about his religion is not an independent source. They do not write about the subject from a disinterested perspective, and do not write the subject matter from a neutral point of view. I am however curious as to how you've come to the conclusion that sources don't relate to article titles? Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not apply only to certain parts of an article. - SudoGhost 20:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think that, then no, you are not aware of what an independent source is. The guideline you cite says nothing about religion, yet you are using to support religious discrimination. Kauffner (talk) 20:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, religious discrimination is arguing that one religion should have special treatment, so they get "narrative" and everyone else gets "myth". Devotional literature are not independent sources. And yes sourcing rules also apply to titles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

An academic who write about it do not write about the subject from a disinterested perspective either. It's just their interests are not the same as the "religious" author and so casting their writing as neutral is similarly foolish. Similarly, Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not have a neutral viewpoint when they state that someone with faith cannot address a subject in a neutral way. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it is religiously non-neutral. Choosing the pov of the religion to describe each religion is not feasible and will not produce neutrality·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz, this is true to an extent. However, they do not give special preference to one specific religion, and (ideally) treat all of them the same. When a source treats all of them the same except for their preferred religion, this is the definition of a non-independent source, and cannot carry the same weight as an independent source. - SudoGhost 21:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

@Kauffner: You're welcome to your opinion, but this is not unique to religion, so the fact that "the guideline I cite says nothing about religion" is irrelevant. It is common sense that when a source does not comment on the material from a neutral and disinterested point of view and has a vested interested in the material, then that source has a conflict of interest and is not an independent source, period. That is not to say that they are not valid sources, but that they do not carry the same weight that an independent source does. Your ad hominem comment about "religious discrimination" is a rather shallow and ineffective deflection of this point.

I am not asserting that we should "not trust or use religious sources", but that when presented with a religious source, and a neutral one, the neutral one carries more weight. This does not mean that any non-religious source is by default neutral, I'm quite aware that many non-religious individuals are quite biased against religion, and that such sources should be taken as such. When there are neutral reliable sources that describe all creation myths as such, and then there are religious sources that describe creation myths as such, but describe their own creation myth as something else, then those sources are quite obviously not neutral on the topic of their religious creation myth, and we should not give those sources the same weight as the independent sources. - SudoGhost 21:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:IS gives "scholarly book" as an example of an independent source, so all the sources I cited qualify. NPOV does not mean that every source has to be neutral, but rather that we balance sources with different POVs. Titling comes under WP:TITLE, a different guideline altogether. Kauffner (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That does not mean that all "scholarly books" are by default independent sources, nor does it mean that a religious book that displays bias on the subject of religion should be treated as an independent source when concerning the biased material. That is why it is just an example. Again, you're still asserting that only certain parts of the article need to follow policies, and nothing has been presented to back that up. WP:TITLE applies. Awesome. How does that equate to "nothing else applies, not even WP:5"? There are dozens of guidelines and policies that apply to each and every tiny little bit of each section of an article, that doesn't mean we choose one at a time, nor does it mean that a guideline negates a core policy. "NPOV does not mean that every source has to be neutral" is a straw man argument, and was never implied. However, we don't treat non-neutral sources as if they're on the same level as neutral sources when there is a conflict between the two sources, and we don't try to give sources which display a bias more weight than neutral sources when determining which terminology to use.

It doesn't matter what guideline says what, at the end of the day common sense is still a useful tool. If Source A calls every creation myth exactly what it is, a creation myth, and Source B, an Christian work written for Christian readers to be used in a Christian context, calls everything a creation myth except for their own creation myth, common sense says that Source B is biased on this, has a conflict of interest preventing them from being objective, and could not be considered independent of their religion in regards to this. I don't care what essay gives what as an example, it doesn't overwrite policy, and it doesn't negate common sense. - SudoGhost 14:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - mostly per Jess. Specifically, per Marcus Borg's Reading the Bible Again for the First Time (since I just finished the chapter in which he discusses the creation stories, uses "myth" and explains why it's the appropriate term). The last time this was discussed, when it was moved from myth to this title, I was on the fence and I didn't participate. But given the arguments here, and after looking around at academic usage and reading Borg's argument (can't call him anti-religion) I'm in favour of the move. Guettarda (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Question for supporters of the current title - why "narrative" and not "narratives", since there are at least two (J and P)? Guettarda (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That itself is open to debate. Biblical critics believe there are at least two, Rabbinic Biblical scholars believe there is only one and the change in the name used for G-d is representative of something other than author. As the singular version of the word can represent one or more authors and the plural version cannot represent one author, for wikipedia to take a stand would be NPOV. -- Avi (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Look at things logically - were does this belong Category:Narratology or Category:Mythology.Moxy (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if that hypothesis was a sound one, the narrative in present form is contained in one place. Wekn reven 15:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Avi has a very good point here, and I think it should definitely be taken into account by whoever closes this discussion. For what it's worth, in the dictionaries I have checked, the academic meaning of myth is listed as its primary meaning, which would disagree with his point further above about it being a secondary meaning. However, his point that the Genesis account does contain at least two different versions of the same story is also a good one, and the word "account" or "narrative" or similar might be, maybe, in some ways, less of a clearly singular term than "myth" seems to at least me to be. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

To clarify solely for the sake of my own conscience, John, I said may contain. My personal opinion follows those who believe there is only one, but as this is not Avipedia but Wikipedia, we have to do things the wiki way -- Avi (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Lexical reality check: This debate involves two unverified claims about myth and narrative semantics.

• • Is myth an "academic term"? The COCA Academic corpus includes 10,702 narrative and 3057 myth usages. Note that many of the latter are in colloquial secondary "common misconception; popular legend" meanings rather than the primary "traditional story; sacred narrative" one.
  • How is narrative usage "neutral"? See the archived Is "creation narrative" religocentric? discussion of July 2010. Keahapana (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Straw man argument, you aren't even comparing the correct things, Searching for the term creation myth i get 70 returned, searching for creation narrative I get 16. Even though Creation Myth gets more hits returned it is still a stupid metric to judge terms by. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

How many times a certain string of characters is used in any given source doesn't show how it is being used, or in what context it is used. - Sudo Ghost 18:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Only 7 of the hits for "creation myth" relate to Genesis or the Bible, compared to 10 for "creation narrative". Of course, "creation story" is more common than either of these. Kauffner (talk) 01:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. This whole discussion about changing the name of the article is a waste of time. The current name is fine. Lets now focus on the real problem, which is the lead. Zenkai _talk 20:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Guys, the current name is fine with Zenkai so we can move on now. Can't believe we wasted so much time discussing this when you were fine with it the whole time! N^oformation ^Talk 20:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The current wording is fine. Zenkai _talk 21:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I know that now. This whole time that the 37 editors here have been discussing this we've just been waiting for you to come by and blindly assert that it's fine without any evidence or appeal to policy. Now that we know we can obviously end the discussion. N^oformation ^Talk 21:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your sarcasm, friend. I'm glad I was able to clear this discussion up. Feel free to close it now. Zenkai _talk 21:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'm going to ask at AN for a three admin close. N^oformation ^Talk 21:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fair. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. 37 opinions is enough to gauge consensus, and I don't think any new arguments will be presented. Three admin close is a good idea. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The last debate was even longer, and nothing has changed. Johnbod (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide a reason for your oppose, please. Also see WP:CCC. My reading of consensus (judging by the weight of sources, policy, and arguments based on them) is that consensus has shifted since the last discussion. As a result, a vote based on previous consensus some time in the past isn't incredibly helpful. Is there a reason you feel the proposed title isn't supported by the literature?   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The way I understand Johnbod's comment is not that consensus has not changed, but the arguments for and against have not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, or sort of. Whether consensus has actually changed is what we are here to find out; I see no sign of it personally. I commented at length previously, and am not obliged to repeat all that again, though most of the arguments have been aired here I think. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The sources don't support this move, and there is even a subtle difference between "Genesis creation narrative" and "Genesis creation myth". Srnec (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify which sources you're looking at, please? We have a lot of sources listed above which support creation myth, and very few for narrative. We even have good sources that are explicit about creation myth being the prominent academic view, such as George Every. Did you see those?   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do you always comment on those who oppose the proposal but never those who support it? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I comment where I feel a comment is actually necessary. In this discussion, that has tended to be editors who have voted oppose without specifying any reason for their vote. I do that in most RfCs I care about, because it occasionally solicits an actual argument from an editor who is unaware that consensus is not a vote. This actually favors your desired outcome, since it gives them further opportunity to take part in the discussion, rather than having their empty vote discounted)   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Genesis narrative is a creation myth. That's not just "the prominent academic view", it is basically the only view. We use the term "creation myth" in the intro. I oppose the move because of the policy cited in the proposal: the perfectly neutral present title should not be avoided just because some people believe it is pandering to fundamentalist Christians. It's not. The Genesis myth is a literary narrative, unlike, for instance, the creation myths of certain other cultures, which were not written down for millennia. The creation myth found in Genesis may have existed in multiple versions, but this article is about only one. That is why I prefer "narrative". This article is about a text in the same way that Epic of Gilgamesh is. It is not parallel to, for example, Mesoamerican creation myths. Srnec (talk) 01:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

@Mann_jess - But it's not an empty vote, just because it doesn't state what you want it to. I looked over the responses and a few of the for are "as per ...." are those empty too? You're bias is showing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(i) Jess's bias is showing? I think Jess's bias showed when he !voted support just like your bias showed when you !voted oppose. No one who votes is unbiased, obviously, and unless someone knows nothing about the topic they are likely biased as well. (ii) A "per" vote is saying that they accept the argument presented by someone else, so it would be empty or not depending on with whom they are concurring. If person A opposed but didn't present an argument and person B said "Per A" then it would be empty; if person A opposed and presented reasoning and person B said "per A" then it would not be empty. (iii) A !vote is not "empty" when it doesn't say what Jess wants it to, a vote is empty when all it does is say "support" or "oppose" without referencing policy or by giving a reason that goes against policy. Please keep in mind that the "!" in "!vote" translates to "not vote" because consensus is not a vote. If 50 people vote for something without giving an argument or policy to back it up and 1 person votes against but presents a reasoned argument based on policy then consensus is the argument of that one (at least in theory). N^oformation ^Talk 02:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well said. I never agree with Noformation, and can't really imagine an editor who holds views more diametrically opposed to my own (well, I take that back... there are half a dozen....that this RFC has dragged in), but thank him for this lucid elucidation of basic dialectic. Neutral voting? LOL! St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 18:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

@Srnec, thanks for the reply. The policy here should be common name, not neutrality, since NPOV says that we shouldn't shy away from using myth. We have a number of sources which use "creation myth" to refer to this subject extensively, so based on the sources above, that would appear to me to apply. Is there a reason you think we should avoid the common name (and "prominent academic view")? I'm not sure the oral or literary nature of the subject is relevant. (Anyway, I could be mistaken, but IIRC Genesis has roots in oral tradition as well. See here) Epic of Gilgamesh is named after the title of the work, just as Book of Genesis. However, this article is not Book of Genesis; it covers the creation myths contained within the book, and is complimentary to that article. If we created a subarticle on a myth contained in the Epic of Gilgamesh, we would name it the same way.

@Walter I'm really not interested. Please keep your focus on the article, not me. I'm tired of you accusing me of bias and bad faith everywhere. If you think my civilly responding to editors in a discussion is cause for concern, take it to my talk or RFCU.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Can't be done when you kibutz with everyone who disagrees with you. Sorry. Your bias is obvious, but since you're not interested...--Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Oppose "Myth" implies fairy tail to many readers. Grantmidnight (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Your reasoning is something WP:RNPOV specifically says is not a factor in determining the use of terminology. - SudoGhost 03:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have come to the conclusion that WP:RNPOV is written from the POV that there is no God and so to discuss it as though there was a God is wrong. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That is quite possibly the correct conclusion to come to. --FormerIP (talk) 03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If you feel that one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, WP:NPOV is itself not NPOV, you're welcome to bring that up there and discuss it. However, short of changing how the policy is worded, the policy exists and is quite clear on this. - SudoGhost 03:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

As well as WP:NOTCENSORED of course. N^oformation ^Talk 03:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Creation stories are fairy tales, with the exception of the ones that are peer reviewed. This isn't Conservapedia. That aside, I don't care whether it's "myth" or "narrative" as long as it is consistent across articles. What we did recently is make a special case for our favouritest fairy tale, which is no good at all. --FormerIP (talk) 02:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that's an opinion. There is no proof that it is a fairy tale, simply an opinion from an atheist POV. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you read the whole thing. That Genesis is a fairly tale is just something I'm pointing out by-the-by. It isn't the reason for my vote. --FormerIP (talk) 03:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That Genesis "is a fairy tale" is blatant bias and is present in none of the reliable literature, nor any but the most militantly anti-religious sources (remember that most sources dealing with religion are religious). It is rarely held to be literally true by academic commentators (although there are a few exceptions to probare the rule), but is generally held to contain some symbolic or timeless truth, or to be history in some sense. Note, that I say "some sense", not that it is modern scientific history. To find any views other than the literal, one must restrict oneself to the last 180 years. Note that "myth" does not connote fairy tale and contains no judgment of truth-value. Note, that the entire argument for "myth" being an NPOV term relies upon that assertion, and you deftly put the lie to it . Note, that I said above, "the entire history of this article, from 'Creation according to Genesis' to 'Genesis creation narrative', has been a POV war, and soon enough we'll have editors crying for 'bullshit fable'". Cave, scriptores! St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 18:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

generally held to contain some symbolic or timeless truth, or to be history in some sense. How is this inconsistent with the concept of a fairy tale? Or, more to the point, a myth? --FormerIP (talk) 21:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Because reliable sources do not describe Genesis as a fairy tale, nor have I ever seen any such comparison. It is a creation myth, myth in this sense does not imply "falsehood" or "fanciful story", but rather a religious one. This is not a descriptor that gives any indication for or against the truth behind the creation myth, but merely one that describes its purpose. - SudoGhost 21:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. It may be fair to describe "myth" as a "neutral" term in this context, but that does not mean it is a term which is neutral as to the truth of the thing it describes. Look it up in a dictionary. FormerIP (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• comment-That "Creation stories are fairy tales" is simply your POV, which is exactly the reason myth should not be included, because to the general reader it implies a fairy tale, a falsehood, a mythical story from the ancient past. Wikipedia is supposed to report the story, not become involved in it. It is therefore POV spin and cannot be included in the article, which is why so many editors have justifiably removed it. Willietell (talk) 06:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No I read it, but when your bias is showing, your argument is flawed. But it's already been shown (below) that there isn't consistency. However that could easily be corrected. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

As has been pointed out above, an editor's "bias" shows as soon as they type the word "support" or the word "oppose". --FormerIP (talk) 03:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not in your case where you called it a fairy tale. Not everyone who supports or opposes has a bias, they may simply be looking at the facts presented and weigh-in based on that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Because describing a story with a talking snake, convincing a woman, who sprang to life from a bone, to eat the fruit of a magic tree, as a “fairy tale” could only be a POV matter of opinion.~ ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 14:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• (extremely, supremely, superlatively strong)support myth is the technical term for this particular kind of religious narrative, and it is also the more common and more neutral usage (neutral because we can't use myth for some religions and narrative for others).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Another editor indicating that it is the more common term, yet it has been shown that this isn't the case. Perhaps an accounting by those who indicate it's more common is in order as those who say the opposite have done. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No it has not been shown to be the case. Just because you say it often enough doesn't make it true. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

*Oppose. Narrative is a very neutral term. It does not need to be changed. I believe this has been discussed many, many times and "narrative" was decided on as a neutral term. Lets put this tired topic to rest already. The Correct Human (talk) 04:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It is only neutral if creation myths of other religions are also called "narratives".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Correct Human is a confirmed sock of Zenkai251. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: It has been shown that "narrative" is used in reliable sources and that it is in common usage. Thus "Genesis creation narrative" passes WP:POVTITLE. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Narrative is common usage by non-independent sources. Among independent sources, which describe it from a disinterested perspective, creation myth is the more common descriptor. - SudoGhost 15:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

:::Someone has already proved your assumption is incorrect. Look around in this mess of a discussion and you will find the post. The Correct Human (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please, provide a diff of this, because my "assumption" is based on reliable sources, as seen above, and I have seen nothing to indicate anything refuting this. - SudoGhost 16:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :). It is somewhere in this extremely long discussion. If I had more time, I would find it for you. The Correct Human (talk) 16:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Then I will assume it does not exist, as nothing has been given to refute this. - SudoGhost 16:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Of the 31 academic instances of the term "creation myth" in the Corpus of Contemporary American English ([6]), only three refer to the Genesis account. However, of the 13 academic instances of the term "creation narrative" in the COCA, seven of them refer to the Genesis account. Since Wikipedia is not prescriptive, but rather descriptive, it ought to follow the common conventions that are currently in use, which, at least according to this analysis seem not to overwhelmingly prefer the "myth" term, as many editors here would have us to believe. HokieRNB 04:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Using the site you linked, how many of the instances of "creation narrative" are independent sources? Only 4. However, I found 5 sources (which oddly differs from your 3) that use "creation myth" to describe Genesis. - SudoGhost 15:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

See response below. HokieRNB 00:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support myth; it is simply the more accurate title. I could live with "story" as a compromise though. bobrayner (talk) 09:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Outside editor just throwing out a few tidbits for people to consider. Personally reading the debate I would favor the change to myth since it is what all religions are addressed as by scholars (even if the common person uses it more frequently as a fictional story.) Also in my experience a narrative is generally used to assert that something is without reserve true, while this isn't necessarily a problem to me you can see how this might cause heartburn for certain people. In my mind story is even worse than myth as myth at least has multiple meanings, and story implies something along the line of bedtime story or something you make up to tell to children. Just my two cents as I check the current RfC boards. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• The phrase "creation story" or "creation narrative" is clearly more common in devotional or exegetical literature. That is a non-neutral standpoint and sometimes its even clear that it is "insider" jargon, such as in these sources that use "creation story" for the Christian myth and myth for all the others:[7]. On the other hands scholarship that is not devotional almost invariably use the word myth equitatively for all creation myths:[8][9][10]. The basic question is whether to adopt a Christian theological language to describe Christianity in the encyclopedia or whether to adopt a devotional or a scholarly pov in the title. Since adopting a devotional pov is clearly in violation of NPOV while a scholarly POV is religiously neutral there is only one decision that is supported by policy. Wikipedia is not a christian encyclopedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Narrative" is a more neutral term, and possibly less POV. More importantly, though, however academic and neutral and correct "myth" is proclaimed to be, there are sufficiently large portions of our readership who will misunderstand it that we will, in effect, be writing an incorrect article. Wlinking in the lead to an explanation of what is meant, while a good attempt, is insufficient, because too many will not see or click the link, and will thus have an incorrect understanding of what we have written. We have to recognise that this is the English WP, thus we ought to write in English; "academic English" isn't good enough to be fully understood. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 16:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Creation narrative is certainly not less POV, the majority of sources that use this term over creation myth are writing from a non-independent religious POV. Possible misunderstanding of the meaning is not a factor in determining the use of terminology, per the policy WP:RNPOV. - SudoGhost 16:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is, i'm afraid, why the policy is mistaken and should be changed. The ability of our readers to understand us should be a factor, nay, the primary factor in everything we write. It's all to easy to forget that readers, not editors, are the primary target of this huge and wonderful project; anything which does not aid them is mistaken. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 18:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Then readers should be educated rather than dumb the encyclopedia down!Theroadislong (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

@Lindsay, then you should go to WP_talk:NPOV and propose a change. When you get it changed, then we can reopen this discussion. We can't just sidestep NPOV in the meantime.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Mmmno, i "should" not. And we can, indeed, sidestep the RNPOV subset if it is preventing an improvement to the encyclopædia; that's what IAR is all about, and i trust the editor who closes this in a few days will fully take into account the necessity of that improvement (or avoiding the degradation which this proposed name-change would be). Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 12:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You said the policy should be changed, but you're not going to change it? RNPOV explicitly deals with this case. It uses this word as an example of the policy. If we don't apply RNPOV here, then it is meaningless and needs to be removed. It's applicable nowhere if even the example is ignored. If you're going to invoke IAR here in direct contradiction to one of the 5 pillars, I think a strong case needs to be made why we should do the opposite of NPOV. Simply asserting the policy is wrong isn't convincing to me, especially when our sources support the wording.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose as completely pointless. There is nothing to gain from renaming/moving the page in terms of building a better encyclopedia. This entire debate is just a mass of "My subjective interptetation is more valid than your subjective interpretation!" Still, at least the POV warriors on both sides have had some fun with this massive waste of time. --86.25.204.219 (talk) 18:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There is something to gain: accuracy and neutrality. Neutrality means sticking to the sources and the sources characterize it as a creation myth - we are doing our readers a disservice to use terminology not used by the people who actually write about the subject and we are breaking policy in doing so. N^oformation ^Talk 22:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Jess, you keep on referring to WP:NPOV. Your argument seems to be that "myth" is not unacceptable despite its much-better-known connotation, due to its particular denotation as regards religion. However, that is not an argument which invalidates "narrative", merely one that says that "myth" should not suffer from what would otherwise be an obvious flaw. My question to you then is why do you feel that "myth" is more neutral than "narrative," or why do you feeel "narrative" is not neutral or appropriate? Especially as both are used in "the real world" as it were, and the latter seems to outnumber the former. In my opinion, with two wiki-acceptable and wiki-neutral titles, I believe it makes sense to use the neutral title that has a clearer connotation and prevents misconceptions whilst adhering to WP:NPOV, and that would be "narrative". -- Avi (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I (and others) have referenced NPOV because it specifies we shouldn't avoid 'myth' when appropriate. Consequently, this isn't a discussion of neutrality. Any editor who !votes that one version is "more neutral" than another should read WP:RNPOV again. The question is WP:UCN, and the independent reliable sources presented thus far have indicated the creation myth contained in Genesis is, indeed, commonly referred to as a creation myth. Therefore, that's the title supported by policy in my reading of the literature. Neutrality isn't my reason for support; it's my reason to reject much of the opposition.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose -- narrative doesn't imply truth or falsity, and is therefore more NPOV than "myth". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

In Academic usage neither does myth. Are you willing to extend your argument to other religions as well, so that the word creation myth is not to be used in wikipedia? Unless you are then it is not neutral to argue that the Crhistian creation account shopuld be protected from the popular connotations of "myth" whereas the word can be used for other religions. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

@Sarek: Could you comment on how this intersects with WP:RNPOV, please? There's been a lot of discussion of this above you may wish to read through, if you haven't already. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

@Maunus: We already have articles, such as Debate between Winter and Summer, that are about creation myths, but not titled as such because they are about individual narratives, like this article about Genesis. There is a difference between a myth and a narrative. This article is about a certain myth only as it is found in a certain narrative. It is about a text as much as it is about a myth, so narrative is the more appropriate term. Why would anybody have a problem with articles on individual literary creation narratives from other religions if sufficient reliable sources could be found to write them? Srnec (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That is finally a valid argument, which I do enjoy. So it is of course right that the "Christian creation myth" manifests into many different narratives - and the one in genesis is only one of those. I am going to have to think whether it is a sufficiently heavy argument for me to rethink my position. A counter argument I can think of is that "Chistian creation myth" redirect suggesting that this article is both about the myth and about the specific narrative (perhaps its scope should be broadened to include other Christian creation narratives, or create a complementary article about Christian cosmogony).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops Srnec - it appears that the article actually includes Christian creation myths other than the genesis narrative. This invalidates your argument and actually suggests that it is impossible for the article to keep this title as it conflicts with its current scope which is about Christian cosmogonical myths.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not. It's about the biblical creation story, which is basically a [i]Jewish[/i] document that Christians co-opted. But even aside from that, where do you stand on the option of calling it a creation myth in the lede, but clarifying [i]in situ[/i] that it is a creation myth in the academic sense? There are a number of POV pushers (Jeffro77, for example) who insist on calling it a creation myth, full stop, because it has a connotation of imaginary. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You've already lied about the piped links. Don't add ad hominem to the list. I wonder if you're this vocal about not calling all the other creation myths myths?--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

See, but I don't edit every article on Wikipedia, and I don't particularly care about those subjects. And it isn't ad hominem. Your agenda is clear. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Lisa is correct, Maunas, that your use of "Christian" is misleading, as there were no Christians around when the Book of Gensis was composed. If you are referring to the section "Biblical creation mythology outside Genesis", I think that only proves the point: other Judeo-Christian creation myths are found outside Genesis, but in that case they are neither Genesis creation myths nor Genesis creation narratives, so there is still no reason to prefer the one title over the other.

I'd also like to comment on Lisa's allegation that some users "insist on calling it a creation myth ... because it has a connotation of imaginary". I actually agree, although I won't point fingers (because I can't be sure who to point them at). Since it is obvious that "narrative" is as neutral as "myth" (in fact moreso), it is unclear why an NPOV issue would be raised in the nomination itself (i.e., because the title isn't POV). Personally, because I read C. S. Lewis—a Christian who loved talking about Christianity as myth—when I was younger, I have no problem with the neutrality of the term "creation myth", but it is a fact that outside of academia the word "myth" connotes falsehood and while that's not a good enough reason in itself to oppose the move it probably does explain why some people (again, I'm not pointing fingers) want this moved. They want the connotation of falsehood while claiming to advocate truth-neutrality. Still, the reason to oppose this is my argument above and not any associations the word "myth" might have. Srnec (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

But that's the thing, it isn't obvious that creation narrative is as neutral as creation myth, that hasn't been established, and in fact has been refuted with evidence to the contrary. While I don't doubt that there may or may not be certain editors who would want to have the article called "Genesis creation myth" to "get at" religion, their ignorance does not negate any valid arguments for the move. We should assume good faith on the part of other editors, not dismiss their reasoning solely because we question their motivation. The article is about Genesis, but the page cannot be called Genesis, that is already a disambiguation page. Therefore the article uses a non-parenthetical disambiguation to distinguish the page from others. WP:NCDAB says that the same disambiguating phrase should be used across similar subjects for consistency. Other creation myths that use a disambiguation in this way use "creation myth", as do reliable sources that consistently use the phrase when discussing creation myths of multiple religions. However, there are people who would confuse the term creation myth (specifically the myth part) with the informal meaning of "false". WP:RNPOV specifically says that this is not a factor in determining the use of terminology. - SudoGhost 03:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I see too many opposes based upon the ridiculous idea that "creation myth" is POV/implies falsity. It doesn't. That's why we have a neutrally titled articles called creation myth, List of creation myths, and political myth (which also has nothing to do with truth value). Jesanj (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That's OK. I see too many agrees for other ideas. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Myth does imply falsity, and thus is a point of view. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

@Graeme - No it doesn't (and you're off topic because this is about the term "creation myth" not "myth"). Defintion 1a for myth "usually a traditional story of ostensibly historical events..." Ostensibly historical ≠ ahistorical. Jesanj (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Myth implies falsity and thus is implying a point of view. Most people would consider something is a myth to say that it is untrue. Just because some academics have an alternative idea of myth does not mean that the vast majority of readers will agree with that accademic definition of "myth". Most of the supporters of a change to myth have the idea that they want to imply that the narrative is untrue, therefore is is clearly a biased point of view to rename it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The suggested wording is creation myth not myth; see linked article. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, "myth" does imply a point of view: the point of view of the reliable sources, which is exactly and only what matters. Reader opinion doesn't dictate our content and editor opinion doesn't dictate our content. The sources do, and that's it. This page is rife with people expressing their opinion on whether "myth" is appropriate or not when the only opinion editors should be expressing is whether the sources that characterize it as a myth are reliable. That has already been vetted and most of the independent sources call it a creation myth. WP policy will not be thrown down the drain because people disagree with it. If there are problems with the policy then opposing editors should attempt to change the policy, not ignore it because they don't like the implications of the sources. N^oformation ^Talk 22:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per the excellent concise arguments by LtPowers and Dougweller. Wikipedia should report what high-quality secondary sources say and it seems obvious to me that the top quality sources on this issue describe the account of creation in Genesis as a "myth", meaning a "core religious narrative". Mark Arsten (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Fundamental flaw

I would like to point out that appealing to WP:RS and then suggesting that somehow this "guideline" (note, not a "policy", per se) requires these sources be "independent" of the subject, is flat out wrong. The stipulations for reliable sources include (1) reliable publication process, and/or (2) authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. This guideline would actually give more weight to interested parties. You will also note that WP:IS is an essay, reflecting merely the opinions of one or more editors, and is neither a policy nor a guideline. Even if you agree with the editors on desiring "independent" sources, carefully reading their essay would in no way jeopardize the use of religious authors on religious topics. That would be akin to suggesting we shouldn't look to scientific authors for articles on science, or look to European authors for articles on Europe. Furthermore, the key relevant policy WP:NPOV says absolutely nothing about relying on neutral or independent sources. It is pure rubbish to think we should not give weight to religious authors. HokieRNB 00:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that if we give weight to religious scholars we have to give equal weight to scholars from all religions - and for scholars from any given religion their narrative is an account while others' is pure fiction. That leaves us with no neutral space other than adopt the terminology used by academia which has the virtue of being used by scholars who are not advocates for a particular religion and therefore apply the same terminology to all religions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No indeed, we do not rely solely on guidelines, instead we use the policy, not guideline, WP:NPOV. The idea that we should give more weight to sources that show a demonstrable bias in their work is not one that is reflected by any Wikipedia policy, especially when those sources are at odds with others that do not reflect this bias. If a Christian source calls the Babylonian creation myth exactly that, yet refuses to give Genesis the same descriptor, this would not have as much weight as a neutral source that does not make exceptions by playing "favorite". This is the very definition of conflict of interest, of a non-independent source, and is not something that we assign equal weight to. This should be common sense, it doesn't matter if it is reffered to by "just an essay". It is not that we do not give weight to religious authors, that was never said nor implied, but we do not assign equal weight to it as sources without this conflict of interest. When any source shows a conflict of interest, it is not given the same weight as a non-COI source, especially when the two differing sources present different information. - SudoGhost 01:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you are radically confusing "conflict of interest" with "vested interest". It is not conflict of interest for a religiously motivated author to write about religious subjects with a religious point of view. In fact, we should expect nothing less. If anything, we should not give as much weight to those who are writing dispassionately about the topic, as they have nothing to lose by being wrong, ignorant, or misinformed. HokieRNB 02:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

So if a source displays a bias on a subject, we should use those sources over those that write about the topic from a neutral point of view? That is an interesting viewpoint, but not one that is reflected by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. A newspaper (ideally) writes from a disinterested perspective, but it is incorrect to assume they have nothing to lose by being wrong or misinformed. A newspaper is (again, in an ideal situation) a disinterested third-party source with no vested interest, but by the logic you give, we should give a neutral newspaper less weight than a primary source with a biased viewpoint, and when the two sources differ, we should go by what the biased source says. That would be a mockery of WP:NPOV, and is absolutely not what we should do. Ever.

We don't give preference to biased sources over neutral third-party sources. If a subject has a conflict of interest then they are incapable of writing about a subject impartially, and will give preference to their own religion when discussing various religions. There is no confusion here, this is a conflict of interest, they are not interested in an impartial analysis of the subject matter, they are interested in supporting their religious views. This is well reflected by the fact that when discussing other creation myths they have no problem labeling them as such, but then give special treatment to their own and refer to it as something else; this is a bias. This bias cannot be ignored and should not be treated as though it is impartial terminology. This does not mean we cannot use these as sources, I'm not implying anything of the sort, but when a religious source describes all creation myths as creation myths except for their own, and it conflicts with a neutral third-party source that doesn't give any preferential treatment and describes them all the same, as a creation myth, it should be very obvious which one has more weight in determining which description we use.

Which then brings me to yet another guideline supporting Genesis creation myth. The article's subject is Genesis, but this is already an article title; the wording that comes after it is a non-parenthetical disambiguation. WP:NCDAB is very clear on how disambiguations are handled: "If there are several possible choices for disambiguating with a class or context, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any." The other articles discussing creation myths are disambiguated, when necessary, as creation myth. - SudoGhost 03:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

As does a scientist give bias to the scientific method when writing about science. A European is likely to give bias to Europe when writing about world civilizations (admittedly less-likely today where self-hate has become a trend in the developed world). Most of the exegetes (which, are, without a doubt, the most reliable sources on inherently exegetical questions, such as those dealing with a religious text) work within a framework of methodological naturalism, even if they are not naturalists or materialists. Also, as an above poster has pointed out, this article deals with the text of Genesis more than anything else, not with the "myth" in general. In the very lead there is a discussion of an exegetical question, which depends on the narrative form of the text - that of the Hebrew word bara. I do not oppose there being an additional article on "Biblical creation myths", as, has been pointed out on this talk page before, there are traces of other cosmogonies in books such as Psalms and Job, if being discussed are all of the myths. "Narrative" has a strong argument in its favor, I believe, from the solely textual/scriptural (written narrative) nature of these myths for the last 2500 years. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 09:09, 3 March 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

With how contentious this issue is it should have been a three admin close. I requested as such at WP:AN though I did so prematurely and so that thread is now archived. Consensus is not supposed to be a tally of the votes but rather a consideration of the strength of the arguments in respect to how well they represent policy and, though I am obviously biased in the issue, I believe that a cursory reading of the !votes show a distinct lack of policy based argument on the side of opposition. I ask that you revert your close and that a three admin panel decide the issue. If that happens and there is still no consensus for a move I believe I can speak for those in support of the move that we will drop the issue, but if the fate of this page is to be decided by a single admin then I'm sorry but I don't think that that can happen. Furthermore, if there is no consensus for a move, then according to the policy WP:CCC this page must be moved to the title used by the first editor after the article was no longer a stub as the title here has been unstable and disputed for a very long time. Lastly, whether editors here think that "myth" or "narrative" is more encyclopedic seems irrelevant in the face of all the sources that non-contentiously use "creation myth" as the designated terminology. To let editor opinion sway the issue is an egregious violation of the very essence of NPOV. N^oformation ^Talk 09:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• As an admin who (afaik) has not been involved in this discussion, I'll support User:Keegan's closure of No Consensus. The discussion/debate seemed mostly hung up on the crux of whether "myth" was appropriate as it may connote something other than fact. And there were a fair amount of arguments from both sides on this. - jc37 18:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  Can you please elaborate a bit more on the specific arguments that you felt were particularly strong for/against the use of "Creation Myth" in the title that led to this statemate. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  I am not sure how much clearer it needs to be. I would just be restating. The argument from those for and against, would seem to be self evident. - jc37 21:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  And note: I do so as a courtesy to those who requested for more than one admin to close. Not because I feel/felt that more than one closer of the discussion was "required". - jc37 18:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  It was explicitly stated 5 days before that we would go for a three admin close to provide some sort of definitive closure. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  Then you've had your wish, two administrators have now said there is No Consensus for a change in the title of the article. Maybe now we can begin to have some useful discussion on eliminating the POV use of Creation Myth in the article and applying the term in a more NPOV manner. Willietell (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  That something "may connote something other than fact" does not overwrite WP:RNPOV, which specifically says that any such concerns do not play a factor in determining the use of given terminology. Local consensus "cannot override community consensus on a wider scale", especially a lack of consensus on an issue. A lack of consensus based on a reasoning that contradicts a Wikipedia policy is not a lack of consensus, as consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. If these arguments express concern over something that a Wikipedia policy explicitly says does not factor into any determination, then as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy these arguments carry zero weight in determining a consensus (or lack thereof). - SudoGhost 06:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  I think I can speak for most editors involved in this - whatever it should be called - by stating, "Christ almighty!" St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 06:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  Your articulate statement has persuaded me. To hell with WP:NPOV, right? If editors are concerned that "something may connote something other than fact", that overrides any policy that specifically says that it doesn't matter if "something may connote something other than fact". - SudoGhost 16:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  Willietell, you seem to misunderstand the implications of No consensus. It doesn't mean one side is right and the other is wrong, nor does it override the policy regarding the proper use of creation myth in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not include both titles?

This edit is a great idea. I would suggest that rather than "The Genesis creation narrative (or creation myth) is..." perhaps "The Genesis creation narrative also commonly referred to the Genesis creation myth) is...". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I support the original, the current, the suggested, anything that doesn't move the article. I more strongly support the original (is a creation myth) than the others, and secondly prefer the parenthesized (or creation myth). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 19:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, and specifically MOS:BOLDTITLE, might make "The Genesis creation narrative (also Genesis creation myth) is..." a good alternative. I think we know why I believe the current form isn't working. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There is another discussion ongoing on the rename, it seems premature to start another topic which will just divert attention everywhere and thus lead to no resolution. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Per the policy, the correct article title is Genesis creation myth, which would also be the first bold term in the sentence. However Genesis creation narrative could be listed as a secondary alternative. The bolded part of the lead sentence should not contain a link.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I believe it makes sense, whatever the outcome of the RfC, that the beginning sentence use both phrases, and bold both. The only question I can see is which order they should be put in, as the phrasing above would probably work just as well with the terms reversed, and I assume that the RfC will decide that issue. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not include neither title?

Why isn't the title, Genesis, first two chapters?

Why doesn't the first sentence read, "The Book of Genesis is the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible)"?

Why aren't we leaving out the elaborations over which we are disagreeing? There is essential language that has to be included in the title and the first sentence. It is not essential that we characterize the first two chapters of Genesis in either the title or the first sentence of the lead. There is ample room in the body of the article for such characterization. Bus stop (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Because it's not a discourse on the first two chapters of Genesis, it's a discussion of creation which is discussed in other locations as discuss in the Biblical creation mythology outside Genesis section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, as can be found in Category:Book of Genesis, there already are several other articles relating to smaller parts of the first two chapters. While it might be acceptable, I suppose, to try to merge all those articles and this one into a single article, I believe that would probably be the required first step of such a change in the title and scope of this article. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There is apparently no willingness for compromise or for concession and both sides feel justified in continuing in their ways. I think it may be time for me to ignore this article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I also find myself wondering why title needs to include either "narrative" or "myth". For that matter, why even narrow the title's focus to "Genesis", when it is covering various views (and there are certainly other notable views on the subject that could be covered) of Judeo-Christian creation stories, and covers material outside of Genesis? • Astynax ^talk 10:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is about one of many creation myths. It is not neutral to treat this article any differently to other creation myths articles, which do not shy away from correctly naming the articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You're confused, Jeffro77. If you go to List of creation myths, you'll see quite a few articles that don't have "creation myth" in their title. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of which are poor quality articles with infrequent editing on them as I noted below. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Lisa is correct, but if you feel that the articles are of poor quality, you always have the right to make them better, as User:Jeffro77 has reminded us, Wikipedia is not censored. Willietell (talk) 05:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Lisa doesn't know what Lisa is talking about, and has no way of gauging whether I am 'confused'; IRWolfie- has sufficiently dealt with the rest of that point. Additionally, Willietell, the notion that Wikipedia is not censored does not mean that it should contain just any POV, but that it may contain valid information supported by policy, even where that material may cause 'necessary' offense.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

But the offense isn't necessary when it can so easily be mitigated by a simple in-text clarification. The fact that you object so strongly to such a clarification makes it clear that AGF or no, your goal is to push an agenda. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No. You are simply ignoring plain statements of policy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing that separates policy prooftexting from Biblical prooftexting except the medium of discourse. It is still argument to authority, as if policy is sacrosanct law. I'm sure it can be found in some WP:Obscure Guideline 573 the letter to support any position. "The letter killeth, but the spirit maketh alive", or something like that. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 18:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

We have WP:IAR for a reason. However, to say that policies are meaningless and should be ignored to this degree is simply incorrect. Policies are descriptive of broad consensus; they matter.   — Jess· Δ♥ 09:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem with this idea - I think we used to do this. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

why was genre removed?

Without any discussion, the entire section on genre was summarily removed. Here is the text that was included...

In academic circles the Genesis creation narrative is often described as a creation or cosmogonic myth. The word myth comes from the Greek root for "story" or "legend", and describes a culturally significant or sacred account explaining the origins of existence by using metaphorical language and symbolism to express ideas. The text has also been variously described as historical narrative (i.e., a literal account); as mythic history (i.e., a symbolic representation of historical time); as ancient science (in that, for the original authors, the narrative represented the current state of knowledge about the cosmos and its origin and purpose); and as theology (as it describes the origin of the earth and humanity in terms of God).

Was this some preliminary move to try to strike the word "narrative" from the article? We already have whittled away the vast majority of the academic sources discussing the fact that the text was conceived as and should be viewed as historical narrative. There seems to be a concerted effort to ignore all but the most secular opinions on this topic. Shouldn't we consider the opinions of people who have spent their lives studying to understand this passage irrespective of their religious ideologies? Ἀλήθεια 03:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

For instance, here are two excellent examples of academics who have contributed to the discussion about the genre of Genesis 1:

• Feinberg, John S. (2006). "The Doctrine of Creation—Literary Genre of Genesis 1 and 2". No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God. Foundations of Evangelical Theology. Vol. 2. Good News Publishers. p. 577. ISBN 1581348118.
• Boyd, Steven W. (2008). "The Genre of Genesis 1:1-2:3:What Means This Text?". In Terry Mortenson, Thane H Ury (ed.). Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth. New Leaf Publishing Group. pp. 174 ff. ISBN 0890515484. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ἀλήθεια (talk • contribs) 03:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Aletheia. The section was removed because it's not really an adequate discussion of this very complex subject. To do it justice would require another article all its own, and would take us into an area which is, in the end, rather off the topic we want to treat, which is the social and historical origins of Genesis 1-2 and its original meaning. For a while we tried to go into the subsequent meanings (or interpretations, if you prefer) that the story acquired, in Second Temple Judaism, in early and later Christianity, and in rabbinic and modern Judaism, but it kept getting longer and longer and losing focus. Even now, we have an article which is already at the limits of acceptable length. PiCo (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be restored and expanded not simply removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am in agreement, it should be immediately restored, an if an editor thinks it is inadequate, they always have the right to expound on the information provided, but there is no cause to remove an entire subheading without discussion. Willietell (talk) 05:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it should be restored. I am expanding it personally (that is, I targeted this specifically for expansion, and it will likely become one of half a dozen offspring of this one in a few months, as I'm around 201k with references now, and will probably be 215k when I reference just what is already written), but believe a stub summary is better than none at all. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 18:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well there seems to be a consensus for restoring. As I said above, I don't like this paragraph because it doesn't really say what needs to be said, and I say that as the one who wrote it in the first place. I could do a redraft and put it here for comment, or would one of you like to take it up? PiCo (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It should definitely include Waltke's analysis on the genre. He and John Sailhamer are probably your best sources for an evangelical view. HokieRNB 03:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You can redraft and post it here for comments, of which I will be more than happy to provide (as you wrote it in the first place and have largely been the showrunner of this article), and I shall propose any amendments at that time (as I've not got that far in the article's expansion, I'm expanding the exegesis of the pericopes initially). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 13:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'm afraid I'm fed up with this article. PiCo (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

From your number of edits here (over 1100), I'm sure you've been at it a long time - I've been dealing with this article for just over a month, and I'm sure I'll burn out on it in another two (that is, I'm surprised you lasted as long as you did in the acrimonious atmosphere surrounding it). If you are not going to write it (or continue writing it) for the time being, do you wish to pass the torch, so that I may, until if you return? St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 09:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

With my blessings. And please, I'm not expressing any hostility to any of the editors in this thread, or indeed in the article, it's just general burn-out :) PiCo (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are editors claiming that all creation story articles have "myth" in the title?

One of the most common arguments among those who want to put "myth" into the title of this article is that all the other articles about creation stories call them "creation myth" in their titles, and that it would be NPOV to do otherwise here.

Either they haven't checked themselves, or they are relying on the fact that most people won't check for themselves. Because it's not true. If we go to List of creation myths, we find numerous counter-examples.

There are those which only give the name of the story:

• Enûma Eliš
• Kumulipo
• Väinämöinen
• Diné Bahaneʼ (Navajo)

And there are those which describe the story, but without using the term "myth":

• Jamshid creation account
• Raven in Creation
• Hiranyagarbha creation
• Kaang creation story (Bushmen)
• Yoruba creation
• Anishinaabeg creation stories
• Hiranyagarbha creation (India)

Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

and there are at least thirty that do include myth in the title.Theroadislong (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you suggesting that the trusted editors are using hyperbole? I've seen that "quite a bit" before. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

But "at least thirty" is not all so there is no need to make this one part of "all" but rather it may remain part of the minority that don't use the term. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think your examples are really relevant, Lisa. The first four are myths known by the titles of the stories that express them but Genesis 1-2 doesn't have a title (though "Bereshit" sounds rather nice). Of the others, "Raven" isn't about a creation myth but about a mythical character, "Hiranyagarbha", so far as I can make out, is about a metaphysical concept expressed in a mythical form, and most of the others are collections of myths, not single unified stories like Genesis 1-2. Jamshid I'm not sure about. Overall, what's it matter? (I rather liked Lisa's original idea, by the way - not often I agree with Lisa, so that must mean something). PiCo (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

None of the ones on your second list are article-titles, so please don't pipe them to give the impression.

*[[Jamshid#In scripture|Jamshid creation account]]
*[[Raven in Creation]]
*[[Hiranyagarbha#Creation|Hiranyagarbha creation]]
*[[Kaang#Creation story|Kaang creation story]] (Bushmen)
*[[Yoruba religion#Creation|Yoruba creation]]
*[[Anishinaabe#History|Anishinaabeg creation stories]]
*[[Hiranyagarbha#Creation|Hiranyagarbha creation]] (India)

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

How many of these articles (and sections) have anything close to any sort of decent article status? 2 are rated stub class, another 6 are rated either start class or c class and only one is rated B class, the other two being unrated by any wikiproject. You appear to be scraping the bottom of the barrel with these articles. Again I also note why is another thread being created on the exact same issue instead of including it in the RFC as a comment. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The piped links are just blatantly dishonest, so the second list warrants no consideration at all. Is this really the level of professionalism we're dealing with?? Aside from that, the first list constitutes an invalid comparison, because the title of this article is not the specific name of a story (and calling this article simply Genesis does not work). (And one of the entries in the first list is a character, not a story.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Previous titles for this article

• Request: I gather from something that was said above that this article was (at one point in the past) entitled "Creation according to Genesis". I kind of like that title, and would like to understand why we moved away from it... Unfortunately, I can not find it in the archives. Could someone provide a link to the discussion about it, or explain why we abandoned that title.? Blueboar (talk) 18:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

1. "Creation accounts in Genesis" since October 2004
2. "Creation according to Genesis" since November 2004
3. "Genesis creation myth" since February 2010 (from this discussion)
4. "Genesis creation narrative" since April 2010 (from this discussion)

Hope this helps. HokieRNB 00:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

For one, the article no longer deals with creation accounts only in Genesis. See the section labeled "Biblical creation mythology outside Genesis". The article should be moved to a different title based on that alone. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah you are right! that invalidates Srnec's argument that this article is about the specific text and not about Christian cosmogony. Thanks for pointing that out!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The obvious solution is Creation according to the Bible. Kauffner (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Which Bible?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to be pedantic. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a valid point. The Bible is WP:COMMONNAME for the Christian Bible. This article's subject is not purely a Christian one. However "Creation according to the Bible" is a loaded title that implies a POV in its very name, and I'm not aware of any "X according to Y" articles existing anywhere on Wikipedia, except redirects and names of films, etc. Also, the article's subject is not Creation, let alone Creation from any point of view, the article's subject is the body of work itself, the text. - SudoGhost 03:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the point ·ʍaunus is making when he says "which Bible?" is this: there's no single, agreed text of the Genesis creation story. Take the first few words: various translations give them "In the beginning God created..." or as "When God began creating..." Even if you go back to the Hebrew there are differences of opinion over just what words mean. In other words, "Creation according to the Bible" isn't as obvious a statement as it might appear. PiCo (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no name for this article that is any less disruptive than the name it has now (which I never went for myself). Nothing will squelch all complaining. Many names are tolerable with most while at the same time a distant runner for first choice. The name it has now is one of them. So for that reason, I'm against wasting any more time on renaming the article for the zthinzthiest time. It's just a merry-go-round. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That is correct but what we should aim for is having members fo all religions to complain equally.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that "the article no longer deals with creation accounts only in Genesis", that is not really the case. The subsection Biblical creation mythology outside Genesis briefly contextualises the Genesis account in reference to other ancient Israelite mythology. It indicates how the account was influenced by earlier stories, but does not discuss any other specific myths.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The correct title, per policy, is Genesis creation myth, which is consistent with other creation myth articles. The other previous titles ignore WP:RNPOV by skirting the issue that the account in Genesis is just as much a creation myth as any other. If there is some concern that the scope of the article is broader than Genesis, then Biblical creation myths may be more accurate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If you think this, you obviously haven't read WP:RNPOV or anything like that: "Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words [fundamentalism and mythology] only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." So the policy is actually discouraging the use of these words rather than mandating them. I see nothing in the policy that would suggest we use something other than the most common, recognizable name of the subject as the title. Kauffner (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner, I think you've misread RNPOV. The section you quoted does not say to avoid using the word mythology. It is discouraging use of its informal meaning. This idea is reiterated in the very next sentence, which says "editors should not avoid using terminology [fundamentalism and mythology] that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources". Per RNPOV, we should not avoid using the word mythology, we just need to use it in its academic sense, which we are. Furthermore, we're not using the term mythology alone. We're using creation myth, which has no informal definition with which it could be confused.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That's disingenuous, at best. To someone who doesn't know the academic use of "myth", "creation myth" means a fairy tale about creation. And the issue isn't not using "myth", it's about clarifying the word in-text, which can't be done in a title. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you reading replies to you at all? RNPOV says confusion about the informal sense is not a factor in determining our use of myth (much less creation myth, which does not have an informal sense), and even if we decide to clarify its use, nothing is stopping us from doing so in the lead. This argument is a non-starter; it hasn't gained any support from anyone AFAICT. Please stop repeating it in every section.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Policy

There's no reason at all to change the title to Genesis creation myth. There is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policy that requires cookie-cutter titles for articles. When there is a major view -- not fringe, however much militant religiophobes may claim otherwise -- that says the account is true, using a word that absolutely has an extremely common connotation of "imaginary" is inappropriate for the title. It is reasonable to include the word in the lede, while clarifying in-text (and not merely via hyperlink) that the word is not being used in the sense of "imaginary", but rather in its academic sense. But apparently, extremists are going to keep fighting to push their religiophobic agenda.

They managed to change the article to Genesis creation myth once for a couple of months. It is not a stable change, and is not "the correct title, per policy", no matter how much Jeffro and his friends claim it is.

This is taken directly from WP:NPOVFAQ#Religion:

An important note on using the term "fundamentalism": In studies of religion, this word has a very specific meaning. Wikipedia articles about religion should use this word only in its technical sense, not "strongly-held belief", "opposition to science", or "religious conservatism", as it is often used in the popular press. Take care to explain what is meant by this term in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. As religion is an emotional and controversial topic, Wikipedia editors should be prepared to see some articles edited due to seemingly minor quibbles. Stay civil and try not to take discussions too personally.

While this speaks about "fundamentalism", rather than "myth", the principle is the same. And to demonstrate that Wikipedia policy views them the same way, this is directly from WP:RNPOV:

Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at words to avoid.

I attempted to modify both of these entries so that each took the other into account, but my edits were reverted. (In case anyone tries to suggest that I was being sneaky.) But the point is this:

• WP:RNPOV says that the word myth should not be avoided just because readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. This means that the article should use the word. It says nothing whatsoever about the title, mind you. It also says that words should be used in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense. It does not say, as has been claimed here, that the formal terms must be used. It says that if you are going to use words like "myth", use them only in their formal sense. And it expresses concern about causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader, which certain editors here have claimed is not a Wikipedia policy concern. WP:RNPOV states otherwise.

• WP:NPOVFAQ#Religion says that when loaded terms are used, "Take care to explain what is meant by this term in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." Again, the concern about causing unnecessary offense is stated.

The sole argument that has been made in favor of changing the title to Genesis creation myth is that not doing so would be inconsistent. But I've read through WP:TITLE, and I've found no mention whatsoever of this supposed policy. The claim that consistent titles are necessary in order to comply with NPOV is an interesting theory, but lacks substance.

The conclusions to be drawn from this are clear:

• This article should not be changed to Genesis creation myth, though there's nothing wrong with having that as a redirect, as is now the case.

• The article must state that the Genesis creation narrative is a creation myth.

• The article must clarify, in-text, that it is a creation myth in the academic sense of the term.

And editors should bear in mind that Wikipedia policy does concern itself with avoiding unnecessary offense. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Except for the first bullet point (which seems paradoxical in light of the two subsequent bullets) I agree completely. Your opinion regarding lack of substance is quaint to say the least - it seems quite natural that parity between the vocabulary used to refer to different religions falls under NPOV whether it is explicitly mentioned in the poilicy or not - otherwise we'll just turn into conservapedia where the Bible is the Word of God and all else is "superstition and lies".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You're really grasping at straws here. Firstly, it's not the only argument that's been advanced, so that's one strawman down (as a matter of fact I advanced several arguments and none of them had to do with inconsistency). Secondly, there is nothing in that text that would lead a reasonable man to conclude that it applied to article content but not titles. If NPOV only applied to article content it would be a pretty big loophole and we would end up with many non-neutral titles (e.g. "Santorum (Neologism)"). Lastly, I submit the Muhammad/Images Arbcom case once more as a demonstration of the principle that wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. A handful of editors tried to remove depictions of Muhammad on the grounds that it would offend hundreds of millions of Muslims and at the end of the day the pictures stand and the main proponent of removing them was banned for a year. This community is strongly against censorship.

As an aside, when you make remarks like "Jeffo and his friends" it painfully demonstrates that you have a WP:BATTLEGROUND, us vs. them mentality. This is supposed to be a civil discussion and when you lump people into groups and make snide remarks it doesn't help any. Try using neutral terms like "those in support;" there's no need to make this personal by insinuating some sort of cabal or relationship between editors that doesn't exist. I have never seen many of the people involved in this RM, Jeff included. N^oformation ^Talk 20:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of strawmen. No one is talking about censorship. If you actually read what I wrote, I think I made it abundantly clear that the term creation myth has to be used. What's your real objection to including a clarification? Don't you think it shows bad faith to be against such a simple thing? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I knew Lisa posted this new section by the time I finished the first paragraph. I must be psychic. Lisa's continued ad hominem and distortion of policy is getting tiresome. The fact that Lisa tried to modify a policy while involved in a dispute directly related to that policy is also highly questionable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Impressive. First Noformation accuses me of strawman arguments and then immediately makes a strawman argument, and then Jeffro, complaining about ad hominems immediately engages in an ad hominem argument. Jeffro, address the policy issues cited above. That's all that matters here. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not ad hominem to discuss user conduct in the context of user conduct. It is ad hominem to claim that an argument is flawed on the basis that you don't like the editors raising it. Aside from that, you haven't raised any valid policy issues here. You've arbitrarily decided that a quite specific "important note on using the term "fundamentalism"" automatically applies to myth. The only relevant part is that already stated at WP:RNPOV—that such terms should be used in their technical sense, which is indeed the case here. Further, WP:NPOV states of titles, "In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." This is certainly the case for articles about creation myths, and is the case with articles about other creation myths. (Some creation myth articles are named for the specific title of the myth instead. However, there is no specific title of the creation myth found in Genesis.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't accuse you of creating a strawman, I observed it as you very clearly did. It is a fact that there have been arguments in favor of the move that are not based on consistency, and for you to state that it is the "sole" argument and then attempt to destroy it is simply fallacious. Secondly, I have no problem with clarifying what myth means in the lede, I had a problem with your particular edit because it was sloppy. If you'll notice my comments leading to this RM, I specifically introduced the idea of a move based on a text proposal that moved "Creation myth" to the first part of the sentence and then clarified the meaning. Furthermore, what I said was not a straw man, it was in direct response to "And editors should bear in mind that Wikipedia policy does concern itself with avoiding unnecessary offense." The actual argument I advanced used an example of a group of editors who attempted to remove content because it was offensive to hundreds of millions of Muslims. While there are literally a couple sentences in policy in favor of restricting content based on offense, there is much, much more that removes offense from the equation. None the less, and as has been pointed out, WP:RNPOV only prescribes that terms such as myth be used in their formal sense to avoid causing unnecessary offense - that's it, there are no other prescriptions aside from that one, very minor thing that we are already doing. You cannot read into that policy and conclude that our primary goal is to minimize offense. This encyclopedia is far more concerned with accuracy. Lastly, yes I am an extremist, a fundamentalist even, when it comes to following sources (and I mean both those terms in their academic sense). Our encyclopedia is built on the idea that Lisa's opinion on the content of a source does not matter. This is the very essence of NPOV. It does not mean to be "fair and balanced," it means to follow the sources dispassionately and without injecting your opinion on the WP:TRUTH value. N^oformation ^Talk 21:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

As regards Policy... I think heart of this dispute centers on two sections of WP:TITLE... the goal of Consistency - which would support "Genisis creation myth" (as being consistent with the titles of similar articles}, and the provision requiring Neutrality in Article Titles (and specifically the sub-section on "non-judgmental descriptive titles", short-cutted as WP:NDESC) - which would support the more neutral "Genesis creation narrative"). Now, the goal of Consistency is just that - a goal. It is important, but it is not a requirement or "rule". WP:NDESC, on the other hand is a requirement or "rule". It ties directly into one of Wikipedia's core policies (WP:NPOV). For this reason, I would favor "Narrative" over "Myth". That said, I think there are other non-judgmental descriptive titles that would be even better. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense because what is being aimed by preferring "myth" for is not just consistency but neutrality -because it is not neutral to use "myth" for some religions and "narrative" for others - that is clearly wikipedia letting one religion adopt its own preferred usage but not extending the courtesy to others. This makes "myth" the only truly neutral choice even if some laymen or people who interpret it through its acnient greek etymology may not understand this.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I read WP:TITLE, and it says explicitly that while consistency is a goal, it is not a rule. And it explains why. And no one, to the best of my knowledge, has asked for those other articles to have their titles changed. If they did, perhaps that would be the correct step to take. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This has been asked elsewhere, but why is Genesis creation narrative more neutral than Genesis creation myth? The only argument I've seen thus far has been that some readers may confuse myth to mean falsity, but per WP:RNPOV that cannot be a factor in our judgement, since we are using the academic sense, and are an academic encyclopedia. The only other way I can interpret neutrality is "what the sources commonly say", and the independent reliable sources we have don't shy away from calling it a creation myth. That means UCN, NDESC and RNPOV support the proposal, so what is more neutral about narrative?   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:RNPOV doesn't say what you're claiming. It says that the word must be used; it does not say it must be used in the title. And since WP:NPOV/FAQ#Religion says that terms which might cause offense should be explained (which can't be done within a title, but can be done in the lede of the article), it's pretty clear that policy supports keeping "myth" in the lede and not the title, and that even there, that it should be explained in-text that the word is not being used in the common, colloquial, non-academic sense of "fairy tale". - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Lisa, others have been over this with you. There's no indication anywhere that WP:NPOV does not apply to titles, nor is there any reason that if we change the title, the lead cannot include a clarification if needed. Furthermore, WP:NPOV/FAQ says nothing about mythology requiring clarification (much less creation myth). It talks of fundamentalism specifically, and without the change you inserted to bolster your argument here, there's no reason I can see to suppose the section on fundamentalism applies to other distinct terminology.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

And really, I don't care if Lisa thinks that her edit to a policy FAQ is innocuous, no one should be editing a policy page that applies to a dispute in which they are involved. Seriously bad form. N^oformation ^Talk 00:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears Lisa simply ignored what is stated about title in the policy that I provided in my previous edit above. WP:NPOV states of titles, "In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." It's curious that Lisa is quick to claim that a 'principle' about a quite specific statement about the use of fundamentalism 'must' apply to myth, and yet Lisa does not perceive any such clarity in applying a 'principle' about article content to titles, particularly when the policy makes a similar direct statement about titles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You're arguing against yourself. The academic usage of "creation myth" is not likely to be well recognized by readers. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of that. I've seen a lot of editors remove creation myth from the article, but I've seen no reason to suspect they're doing so because of confusion and not (like similar edits to Age of the earth) due to disliking the characterization of their religious beliefs. Creation myth has only one definition, academic or not, and it is clearly wikilinked for any reader to examine.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence to support the claim that the term creation myth is 'unknown', or that it is any less known than creation narrative. To my knowledge, no one has complained about the titles of all the other creation myth articles as having 'unrecognised' titles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

@Blueboar Two points: 1. A word does not become loaded simply because there is a subset of the population that doesn't understand it. For instance, the word wikt:woo woo was recently claimed to be offensive by an editor at acupuncture because he thought it had negative connotations wrt Chinese people - but his perception of the word as racist didn't actually mean the word was racist. In the same way, "myth" is the term preferred by scholars and it carries no negative implications in its formal sense. It doesn't matter that there are Christians who may not understand the term, it only matters what the term means. 2. You used WP:NDESC as an argument against myth but the policy states "[h]owever, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources." WP:NPOV#NAMING goes on to state "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." N^oformation ^Talk 21:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

But the academic usage of "creation myth" is not likely to be well recognized by readers. That's just the point. And that's why it's a problematic term that needs to be clarified in-text and not used in the title. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What evidence do you have to support that assertion? That people remove the phrase? There are myriad reasons why people might remove it from the lede and we have no reason to assume that a lack of understanding is the driving factor. Also, as far as I'm aware there is no difference between the academic and non-academic uses of the phrase creation myth, although in academia the word myth is used differently in some but not all scenarios. That genesis is a creation myth is not a contentious statement outside of certain circles and those circles are not the people to whom we give weight. N^oformation ^Talk 01:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Genesis creation myth and Genesis creation narrative have equal neutrality in my opinion. While Wikipedia-wide consistency favors myth, the rational opposes cite narrative as being more common. Jesanj (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, as I recall, the very line of 'policy' that keeps being trumpeted by a minority of editors (who nevertheless write the vast majority of words here) as obviating all other considerations, was itself boldly penned in a few years back IIRC, by an editor who was also very highly involved in pushing what I call the Enver Hoxha POV - ie the one that says "the only sources to be deemed reliable or mentionable shall be those that equate all religion (or religion xyz we don't like) with mythology". This act of wikipedians creating policy ad hoc as you go along, started up quite a big furor at the time, too. Which makes one wonder how it could be any more valid than what Lisa tried to write. For 10 cents I would look through the archives from 5-6 years ago and see who that editor was. I'm sure that's what would be found if anyone were bothered to look. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The Correct Human & Zenkai251

Not sure why The Correct Human's vote was removed. I understand that the user was a sockpuppet of Zenkai251, but Zenkai251 has not yet voted. Pointing to the appropriate policy would be sufficient. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Socks are not valid editors. They have no right to vote, even if the puppetmaster hasn't. A sock is not the same as a legitimate alternate account. Both Zenkai and the sock are gone forever now. Too bad, because he was a rather good editor on music related articles, just hopelessly incompetent on religion-related ones. It would have been better if we had topic-banned him months ago instead of giving him WP:ROPE. He could have been a very peroductive editor. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

1) That's standard practice, 2) this isn't a vote, 3) Zenkai did, indeed, !vote and comment multiple times, although he didn't advance any argument.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There are valid reasons to have socks, but Zenkai251 did not appear to have one. I do understand how a good editor in one area can be a bad editor in another. I didn't read the editor's comments here. Also, Zenkai251 did not vote as in support or opposed to the move, although did comment. Thanks. This thread is ready to archive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It is never condoned to use two accounts in the same discussion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[11]   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, read WP:SOCK. Sock does not mean Alternate account.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I was looking for the full name, not a stylized signature.

I did read WP:SOCK and your suggestion that it does not mean alternate account is not correct. See WP:SOCK#LEGIT. A sockpuppet may be legitimately used as an alternate account in some instances. Maunus's statement is supported by WP:ILLEGIT.

That said, the use by Zenkai251 was definitely not legitimate, particularly when he pumps his sock's opinions using his own account. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That section details legitimate uses of alternate accounts. A sock is not an alternate account. The very top of WP:SOCK says "the use of multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors...or otherwise violate community standards and policies is called sock puppetry". A sock is, by definition, illegitimate.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

@Walter: [WP:SOCK#LEGIT]] specifically states that legitimate alternate accounts are NOT sockpuppets. Be careful with the terminology because calling a legitimate account a "sock" would be offensive. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Even though I agreed with much of Zenkai's sentiments (if not his methods - especially sockpuppetry - or skills in rhetoric), this appears to be an open-and-shut case of sockpuppetry. The only way I think it could have been handled better would have been to have a neutral admin instead of Seb - one of the most outspoken and caustic opponents of the "keep" position in this debate - implement the ban, but that's not really a problem, as it's a "redline" policy. Hmm... I wonder if I should buy my female friend (I wonder if she's got her account auto-confirmed yet? User:VinElendel) a hotel room so she can join the fray without sharing my IP address? Oh... she'd probably vote against me (evolutionary biologists aren't known for their religiosity). And the jig is up anyways. Nevermind </sarcasm> St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 13:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Seb isn't an admin on the English wikipedia. Zenkai was banned [12] by User:Favonian block log: [13] who doesn't seem to have commented on this case, so I don't see how it could have been better handled. Also asking your female friend to vote seems like off wiki canvassing. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I looked at Zenkai's userpage and saw Seb. If he didn't do the ban, I agree that it was handled perfectly. Asking my friend (and getting her a hotel room so she could have a different IP address) is most definitely off-wiki canvassing - I had meatpuppetry more in mind. That's why I added the </sarcasm> tag, as well as asserting that she'd be unlikely to share my view (although for POV reasons - if it denigrates religion, it's her Gospel). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 18:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Mistakes happen, no worries. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

True. I'll miss Zen. Wekn reven 19:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

When a user is caught with sock puppets twice it's more than a mistake, it shows intent. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I won't miss him. He was a troll. He will be back anyway. Eventually his hands will get cold and he will put some socks on to keep warm.--Adam in MO Talk 06:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too sure. Most of his edits certainly didn't seem trollish. You seem to have a very broad stereotype about sock puppeteers -- anyway, back to the topic, shall we? Wekn reven 15:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Islam

I suppose this article should have a section on its interpretation/acceptance within Islam? Jesanj (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly not, because it doesn't feature in the Quran. On the other hand, if there are sources on which to base worthwhile content... FormerIP (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Since Genesis is widely accepted as a holy book in Islam there is very likely to be relevant writings, and if they are found and are important then the section should exist. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Genesis is not widely accepted as a holy book in Islam. Islam holds that previous revelations have been corrupted and are of little or no value. PiCo (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked for sources in both English and Arabic a week or two ago, as I was going to include a section on Genesis and Islam. There are none, let alone any academic ones. PiCo is right: none of the Bible, unless it agrees with something stated in the Koran, is viewed as a holy book in Islam, but viewed as tahrif, corrupted. Many Muslims will say, "Oh, the entire Bible hasn't been corrupted, we just don't accept the parts that are corrupted, only prophecies of Muhammad/things about Jesus being God/etc. are the corrupted parts", but you'll never pin them down on which parts are legit and which ones aren't, except, "if it agrees with the Koran or a sahih hadith, it is legit, if it doesn't, it's not" - and the Koran is very short, about the length of the Gospels and Acts combined. This is borne out by the fact that there is no literature on the matter - the creation myth literature in Islam has almost solely to do with whether the world was created in 6 or 8 days (as two different passages give different numbers), and reconciling those passages. There is no lower or higher criticism, at all (there has been a grand total of ONE book published on it, called "the Syriac reading of the Koran"). There are a few WP:SPS on how Genesis backs up the 6-day side of the Koran debates (which is the generally accepted one), but they only deal with Gen 1:1-26, and don't pass muster as WP:RS. After that, it (the Genesis text) starts talking about Man naming the animals (Allah names them in Islam, and then tells Adam), Man being created on earth (in Islam, man is created in Heaven and cast down to earth), original sin (why Man was cast out is never stated in the Koran, except for "sin"), no mention of Satan/Iblis refusing to bow or the fall of angels (which plays a major role in the Surah al-Baqara and gives a completely different chronology for the fall of the Host than in Christianity), etc. - and that's just in the second and beginning of the third chapters of Genesis alone! St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 08:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this book is accepted by any other religion, such as Baha'i'ism, as the Baha'is accept many other religion's books, in my experience. However, I don't know where to look for Baha'i literature. I'm sure there are individual, say, Hindus, who read it and appreciate it, just as I read the Mahabharata and some of the Vedic hymns and appreciate them, but I've never heard of the religion itself accepting it. I suppose we could add a section, "Genesis in other religions", and say something such as, "Jews and Christians find this book inspired. Other religions do not." The individual opinions of certain adherents of a religion don't seem to matter nor be reliable: following that specific logic (I am not suggesting anyone beyond me has even proposed it yet), one would have to include large swathes of the Apocrypha, OT and NT (i.e. Pseudepigrapha, not deuterocanonicals/Protestant apocrypha) as "canonical" because some neo-Gnostics hold them to be such, etc. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 08:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not include neither narrative nor myth?

I'm an uninvolved administrator, and at the request of a noticeboard I spent quite a bit of time reviewing arguments and I can find no consensus. I've never edited nor participated in this article, so here's an idea: title the article "Genesis Creation" and leave it at that. No narrative, no story, no myth, just the topic of Genesis creation. An alternate title could be along the lines of "Genesis creation (biblical)". I understand the arguments that will come for using any of the descriptors, but this is a compromise to maintain NPOV and integrity. Thoughts? Keegan (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Will we also do the same with all other creation myth articles? 'Genesis Creation' as a title isn't really a thing, and leaving out the descriptor would be to "avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view", which the policy tells us not to do. The alternative would be if there is a distinctive title for the account in common usage, but I'm not aware that any exists.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Understood, but we don't have a standard here. What we do on one article doesn't have to be what we do on another. It is quite apparent that "narrative" versus "myth" is esoteric and left for us to discuss, and we can't agree. So what name will work? Keegan (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact is that use of myth is not esoteric. It is the term used in academic sources, and is the term used for other articles about creation myths, and it is a term specifically addressed at WP:RNPOV. What compelling policy-based rguments do you see for not using the term?--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Question about RM closure

Question, what "oppose" argument was given to create a lack of consensus, negate reliable independent sources, WP:RNPOV, and WP:NCDAB? - SudoGhost 06:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What we label things is very important. Consensus is garnered from an agreement to abide by a particular terminology, and we do not have that here nor across the English Wikipedia. We document creation and the stories surrounding it, but it is remiss to use terminology like narrative or myth, which is what the discussion pointed out. In my experience and knowledge of policy and practice, I read the discussion to lack consensus based on practical Wikipedia practice and naming conventions. I'm familiar with the policies such as RNPOV, and I do not feel contradictions in the discussion disprove the naming. If you read over the discussion, there is no consensus. This doesn't mean anyone is right or wrong, but there is no agreement. Keegan (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

So you treated it as a vote, and not as a true consensus? - SudoGhost 06:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not. Please re-read what I wrote and the discussion above. There was no consensus. Keegan (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on what you believe is "remiss"? It is not "remiss" to use terminology that reliable sources use, especially when Wikipedia policy specifically says it is not "remiss" to do so. A contentious subject will never have an "agreement", and this is not what a consensus is. The issue with images of Mohammad still does not have an "agreement that all sides would abide by", but it does have a consensus. This is not a vote, consensus is not an "agreement to abide", if that were the case, any disagreement would by default be "no consensus". - SudoGhost 07:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected, it apparently isn't a vote, it's a popularity contest, where 2/3 is the magic voting number, weight of the editor's comment and policy be damned. I was under the impression that Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. - SudoGhost 07:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You are mischaraterising my comment. From our policy:

"When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerned. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular "perfect" version immediately. The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view."

We do not have that here. Keegan (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not see this supposed lack of consensus, what I see is a closing admin that seems to misunderstand the policies that they are supposed to be taking into consideration when closing the RM. You stated "it is remiss to use terminology like narrative or myth" however your comment is contradicted by a core Wikipedia policy, WP:RNPOV ("editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources") which specifically mentions mythology as an example. This very policy is the one that has been quoted dozens of times in the RM, so anyone that read the RM should have been very aware of its existence and its contents; it does not give me any measure of confidence in a closing admin that would read this policy in the RM and then give a reasoning that directly opposes this policy. This seems to further suggest that, even if this was truly a "consensus" based close, as opposed to the "vote" based closed that it appears to be, inappropriate weight was given to arguments that "myth is not a proper word to use", despite the policy that says otherwise.

If I am mischaracterizing your oddly timed mention of "2/3 people to agree on anything" being the "threashhold for promotion on anything here", then why did you make that comment in regards to closing this RM? A consensus is not a vote or a popularity contest, yet your comment seemed to suggest that the number of "opposes" and "supports" was the determining factor in your "no consensus" decision, which you then backed up with a reasoning that directly violates Wikipedia policy. The number of opposing and supporting comments is irrelevant to a consensus, which is why your "2/3...threshold for promotion on anything here" comment is concerning. Did the number of editors commenting on this play a factor in how you closed the RM? If so, then this RM was closed as a vote, not a consensus. If this was not a factor in how the RM was closed, then why make the comment? Again, what argument, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, creates this lack of consensus? - SudoGhost 07:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also be interested in hearing what argument was given against this core policy that the closing admin weighed up that led to "no concensus". IRWolfie- (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

My opinion on policy and this matter is unrelated to the closure, because I'm uninvolved. The opposes do a reasonable job arguing against the move just as validly as those supporting it. This results in no concensus Not closing as Keep, not closing as Move, closing as we can't agree to even disagree. Again, I never mentioned counting votes or tallying opinions as votes in any way. These are words being put into my mouth so I am not going to defend a stance that isn't mine. Keegan (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for your opinion on policy; I was asking which oppose arguments you are specifically referring to. You did not provided the actual rational for the no concensus close. Such as it was argued that policy y led to... but it was counter-argued that...'. I don't think this is unreasonable. What gave the oppose arguments this validity specifically? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I can work with that. The supporters feel that the move falls well within our policy on keeping a neutral point of view relating to religion; indeed the word mythology is mentioned there. However, a vast number of the opposition feel that this application of RNPOV is incorrect and doesn't skirt being inflammatory. In an environment where we don't have "rules" in the strictest sense of the word and policies and guidelines instead, it smacks the discussion in the face to say that there opinions do not matter because a particular wording of a policy is favorable to one group. I'm not allowed to look at the discussion and say "Yep, they're right, that's what RNPOV says so that's what goes" because it the opinions of others in the discussion, not my own, that matter. That's the point of being uninvolved. This website would be a much more fantastic place to work than it already is if we could learn to be objective about the opinions of others and not quite so dismissive because there's an out. Noformation has proven my point with the post just below this one. Absolutely no respect given to the opinions of the opposition or the close. It's a pity. Keegan (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, our opinions are not supposed to matter one tiny bit and your post demonstrates that somehow you've been an admin for 5 years but haven't actually understood WP:NPOV nor how this place is supposed to work (I'm sure you do fine work in other areas but in regards to your interpretation of policy you are simply and utterly wrong). You just pretty much acknowledged that policy says one thing but that the feelings and opinions of a particular group whose views are not in line with that policy trumped what the policy actually said. In other words, you gave weight to numbers as you had been accused of. Ask yourself: if there were only 1 person on the oppose side and that person said everything that all the opposes did, would you have still closed no consensus? I seriously doubt it, and I don't know if you realize that what you wrote above pretty much condemns your close but either way it's not done. If you don't want to reverse and let three admins who understand this area of WP deal with this then this will have to be escalated. Please just do the right thing, step back, drop the ego and let this be resolved correctly.

And actually, yes, your job in this matter was literally to look at the discussion and say "Yep, they're right, that's what RNPOV says so that's what goes." When you ignore policy then by default you are considering arguments that may be out of line with that policy and in this case that's exactly what you did. N^oformation ^Talk 00:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Because editors "feel" RNPOV is incorrect, it overwrites a core policy? This is not a question of an "interpretation of policy", it is spelled out very clearly, and a local consensus does not negate a policy, especially a core policy. The closing admin has demonstrated that tjeu are not capable of closing this RM, given the statements that are directly and clearly contradictory to core policy, and the very questionable statements of a "vote" based closed, which the closing admin have repeatedly refused to address. I am asking the closing admin one more time: please reverse your close, and allow other administrators to close this. If your close is indeed correct, then other administrators will undoubtedly come to the same conclusion, and would remove any doubt to the authenticity of this close. As it stands, however, this close is based on a demonstrably false reasoning, and should not have been closed by this admin. If the admin will not reverse this close, then steps will be taken to reverse it for them. If this cannot be done, then another RM will be opened, with the very strong recommendation that this closing admin not have any involvement in the closing of the RM. As it would, to my understanding, simply be a repetition of this current RM, the simpler answer would be to allow another administrator (preferably 3) to close this RM. - SudoGhost 00:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Im usually not the type to be this blunt or vulgar but your close was utter, sloppy bullshit and it demonstrates serious carelessness as an administrator. Your rational explains nothing about how the oppose side demonstrated that their argument is consistent with policy. The reason that people keep pointing out that consensus is not a vote is because people are astonished by a no consensus closure on what seems to be an obvious choice and thus assume that you must have given weight to the numbers. If you had actually explained your rational then perhaps this would not be the case. Exactly what policy based arguments counter the fact that our NPOV policy specifically uses "myth" as the example to demonstrate the policy? What policy based arguments were presented against the fact that editor opinion on the term is irrelevant and that what matters is whether the term has been used non-contentiously by a majority of the reliable sources? You seem to indicate that there are policy based arguments that trump NPOV - what are they?. I don't doubt at least some of the opposition is also astonished by the close because it seemed pretty fucking clear cut. So please explain yourself. This was an incredibly contentious issue and you should have walked a finer line; if you're not willing to answer questions then you should not have been the closing admin. N^oformation ^Talk 23:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You are treating this exactly like a vote: However, a vast number of the opposition feel that this application of RNPOV is incorrect and doesn't skirt being inflammatory.. The number of objections should be irrelevant, it is all about the arguments, concensus building is not a vote. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

A couple editors (myself and noformation included) asked for a 3 admin close. This is a fairly contentious issue that's been running for a long time, and I think that's important. Was that not possible?   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have posted on AN that others are welcome to participate. Keegan (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

So, if a vocal minority opposes what is in a policy, policy be damned?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that other administrators are going to override a decision in such a long discussion that has already been made by 1 admin, hence it was requested that 3 admins close it. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Typical scumbag wikipedians. Don't get own way in debate. Accuse admin of treating it as popularity contest/vote. First reviewing administrator doesn't agree with you? "NO WAIT GUYS lets have it best of 3! We need 3 closures!" - Good to see you guys feel arguing over a pointless rename is more important than, you know, actually writing encyclopedic content. Gotta push that PoV! --86.25.205.193 (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

We agree to a 3 admin close BEFORE the closure. This is fully consistent with what was agreed in the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you please also clarifiy "why Neither argument successfully generates an encyclopedic name for the article.". IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That was just my opinion, there, and that's why I posted suggesting other alternatives since there is no traction in the discussion between the terms already being discussed.

can you please provide your explicit rationale. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Everyone does realize that the RFC is supposed to be the RFC, and that an additional admin has lent his support to the closure above (which makes it a close even on a 2-1 vote of a 3-admin panel, as far as I am aware - honest statement, there are some esoteric policies here), but, this now appears to be turning in to an RFC on the admin's actions! Can we agree to disagree (for now, until the next inevitable RFC) and let the decision of two admins stand, and WP:AGF in the admins - they are admins for a reason (earned the trust of the community, etc., etc.)! As far as I understand it, it isn't the job of the admin to distill the arguments for everyone, when, no matter how they are distilled, no matter to what proof, those who oppose the close will still oppose it, and those who don't still won't. (I have never been involved from beginning to end in one of these before, so please excuse my ignorance on esoteric matters of implementation.) St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 00:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Another admin who gave no justification but simply stated that they agree adds nothing to this, nor would 10 more. I've been involved with dozens of RFCs/AFDs/etc and even on less contentious issues there is usually a fully written justification on the topic. Admins don't get to vote either, that's not the point of asking for a three admin close. So no, I don't think that this is the end of it at all and this very well may turn into an RFC on an administrator if Keegan isn't willing to be reasonable. The issues totally aside for a moment, it was just sloppy adminship and I promise you that I would be saying the exact same thing if this was another issue with which I were not involved. N^oformation ^Talk 00:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If there are discrepancies with a close it is perfectly acceptable to ask for a detailed rationale. Assuming good faith doesn't mean we assume everyone is perfect. Rather, it means when there is a mistake we take it that it wasn't with bad intent, but it doesn't mean we ignore it, it still must be dealt with. That the close was sloppy should be dealt with, but we still assume that Keegan acted in good faith by trying to perform the close. It appears he operated from a misunderstanding that these discussions are effectively votes, this should not be glossed over. Mistakes happen, even admins are not perfect. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed a detailed rationale is expected from the closer of a large RfC, with entrenched opposition on both sides.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made a request for it on his talk page, hopefully this will be added to the appropriate section so we can at least see his full reasoning [14]. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, let's get a few things straight here. The RfC was about adding a clarification to the text of the lede to make it clear that the term "creation myth" is being used the academic way, and not the common/colloquial way that the vast majority of readers will be familiar with. Keegan, who is being badgered by a bunch of sore losers, closed the RM; not the RfC. So I've changed the title of this section to reflect that.

People keep stating and restating the untruth that there is a "core policy" which supports the side of those who wanted to move the article. SudoGhost wrote:

however your comment is contradicted by a core Wikipedia policy, WP:RNPOV ("editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources") which specifically mentions mythology as an example.

This is ridiculous. No one was talking about not using the term during the RM. The RfC most certainly didn't suggest omitting the term. The RM was started, in bad faith, right in the middle of an RfC by Jeffro77. It should have been shut down on the spot as an inappropriate interference in the RfC process and an attempt to stifle the discussion that was going on at the time. The diff that the RfC was about can be seen here. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The only bad faith move I have seen on this page - all support and opposition included, even those with whom I strongly disagree - is when you edited a policy page that directly applied to a dispute in which you were involved. Other than that everyone here has generally been acting as they should be. For you to even bring up the notion that another editor edited in bad faith by requesting a move that at the time had little opposition in the RFC is ludicrous and hypocritical in the face of your actions here. If someone had taken you to AN/I before it got stale I don't doubt that you would have either been severely admonished or blocked; you're lucky that editors were more concerned with the issue than your behavior. N^oformation ^Talk 02:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The statement you quoted is taken out of context. The comment that "No one was talking about not using the term during the RM" has absolutely nothing to do with the statement you quoted, I was not addressing the RM, I was addressing the closing admin, who was "talking about not using the term." (what was specifically said was "it is remiss to use terminology like narrative or myth", and the statement you quoted was addressing this, not the RM). This was not a comment that WP:RNPOV "supports the side of those who wanted to move the article" but that the closing admin's statement contradicted this policy. Please be more careful before you state that what others write is "ridiculous", I certainly don't appreciate this, especially because what you thought was "ridiculous" about it was that it was directed towards the RM, when it was not. - SudoGhost 03:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Lisa's false accusation of 'bad faith' is noted and categorically rejected. The requested move was very clearly based on policy. On the other hand, modification of a policy-related article pertaining to a dispute in which one is involved constitutes 'bad faith', as does providing a list of 'article titles' that are actually piped links.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The RFC was a no-brainer, as the issue is explicitly addressed in policy. (I have linked the term to make it clear I am using it in its usual sense, to circumvent any tedious accusation of calling any individual 'brainless'.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems the admin won't be providing his full reasoning for the close: [15]. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Back to the RfC

The RfC that was pending when Jeffro77 decided to try and circumvent it with a move request, was about keeping the phrase creation myth in the lede, and clarifying it there so that no one can complain the term is being censored, and no one can complain that the term is being used in such a way as to confuse readers. It's a compromise, people, which is what Wikipedia is about. I've edited the lede to fit. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen you make an edit yet, but please don't edit the lead until you have consensus to do so. This is a contentious issue, and that won't help matters. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In this case I disagree with you, Jess. Now the lead sentence contains both terms, even though large groups of editors believe one or the other term is preferable. -- Avi (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That's because of a bold edit by JohnC, which is unrelated to Lisa's complaint above. Lisa is saying we should add additional wording to the lead after "is a creation myth", which explains what "creation myth" means. I'm asking her to wait until consensus is settled before inserting that wording. You may revert John's other edit if you find it disagreeable.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, I was referring to John's edit. Thank you for the correction. As to Lisa's edit, I will reserve judgment for now. -- Avi (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• It is a creation myth - it is not just called it. Lisa's proposed change is pure editorializing and POV obfuscation. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• I am opposed to inserting it directly in to the lead - the reasons have been stated ad nauseam throughout the past two months - but I am neutral about putting it in a large-style note < refgroup="note" > style, which gives ^{note 1} as its output. Only neutral because I doubt it will do anything to satisfy anyone. Most of one side wants it brazenly branded as a lie, and most of another side wants it brazenly branded as literal, 6,000-year-old-earth Truth (talking about the wording of the lead, not narrative v. myth). And I alone have the Truth, the Way, and the Light, a lone voice crying out in the wilderness. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 06:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Question - How is the term currently being used to confuse readers? It is not being used in an informal way, and is wikilinked to provide further clarification, which is the purpose of a wikilink. If a wikilink does not provide clarification and increase a reader's understanding of the topic, then what is a wikilink for? The wikilink gives a thorough explanation of what is meant by the term, explaining much more thoroughly than a note or in-text clarification would be able to. - SudoGhost 06:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We need some flexibility here - why are we saying creation 2 times in the the first sentence. Can we get a proper sentence over the current grade five version that is repetitive?Moxy (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Because the word is used once in the title, and once as part of a concise definition to explain what the article's subject is, per WP:LEDE. This isn't unique to this article. For example, any article about a high school will say "XYZ High School is a...high school located in..." The same goes for any article where a word in the title is also part of a concise definition. This isn't unique to unreviewed articles either, but includes good articles such as Kauhajoki school shooting or a featured article such as Major depressive disorder. Articles should not sacrifice conciseness out of a concern for repetition. - SudoGhost 16:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• we should be able to use all the commonly used terms for this in the lede, the title should be first and then one or two alternative terms. There should be no POV tag on the top, as the article should represent the points of view. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the wording suggested in the RFC is that it attempted to qualify the term creation myth with a disclaimer. The correct term, linked to the correct article (creation myth) does not require such a disclaimer. Other articles about creation myths do not have, or require, such a disclaimer, and nor does this one. Lisa's continued attacks on my motives are irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I hate to have to agree with Jeffro on this one. I agree with Jeffro on this one. (Struck comment as I intended no offense, see message on my talk page.) The Wikilink is enough, and if we do a ^{note 1} style explanation, it's not going to satisfy anyone. Those who don't like it will still drive-by edit it to story/account/unvarnished truth/whatever. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 18:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Came to this argument from the RfC, spent a couple hours going over previous debate. Having a good deal of experience with studies of mythology (esp. contemporary mythology that engages with "true" events and phenomena, ala Roland Barthes' work), I find myself cringing at the idea of perpetuating the informal and ignorant view of mythology as "a fictional story" or whatever. I wholly support using the term "myth" in title and lede without disclaimer or qualification. Ignorance is not really a good excuse for taking offense, and pandering to ignorance by burying the academic definition of "myth" out of fears that those who are ignorant of the words' meaning (or, alternately, those who cannot handle metaphor in general) might take offense is really, really counterproductive. Beyond that, the use of "narrative" would be convoluted and less accurate. Maybe "narrative" could be correct, but certainly not as correct as "myth". I'll let others do the WP rules lawyering, though. "Creation in Genesis" would be just as acceptable to me for a title. That is, I'd be happy to see us sidestep the issue - it's far better than using inaccurate or vague language where a more correct term is available. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding POV-title template

Please refrain from doing so; discuss it at the ongoing discussion on the administrator's noticeboard, but there seemed to be broad consensus that neither narrative nor myth were POV. POV would be "Creation", "Beginning of the Universe", "Creation as told by God", etc.; don't start a dispute that doesn't even exist because one is unsatisfied with the way the RfM turned out. Thank you. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 02:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If myth is the term used by the majority of independent sources and if narrative is the term used mostly by writers with a Christian POV then the tag is fully relevant. That RM may be closed and may not reopen but this issue is far from dead. I will revert your removal, please don't remove it until the issue is settled one way or another. N^oformation ^Talk 02:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

How exactly does "narrative" imply any POV? Isn't it a "reliable sources" problem (since you state, that it is a problem with the sources that contain "narrative") if you think the (Judaeo-Christian) exegetical sources used are inappropriate for an article on exegesis? As far as I understand it, the template is for such articles as "George Bush (Liar)", "Richard 'Tricky Dick' Nixon", "Pious fiction (listing of all religions' scriptures)", "Holy Bible" (instead of "Christian Bible"), "Jesus Christ" (instead of "Jesus of Nazareth"), etc. - if not, why wasn't this tag added long ago? Most (many?) of the "move" !voters thought that neither term was POV (there was an entire sub-thread about "more NPOV"), so adding this strikes me as battleground (as it was added directly and only in response to a "lost battle"), tendentious, etc. I ask that you provide the rationale for adding it: whoever uses a certain name doesn't change the inherent neutrality or non-neutrality of it, as was brought up in the discussions of "myth" being an academic sense (that it didn't become "loaded" because some people "misused" it). In that case, "myth" being used by militantly anti-religious authors (such as Dawkins) would disqualify it too, yes, as "anti-religious" is a POV as surely as any other, and I know of no "anti-religious academic consensus". St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 02:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the tag as its clearly a disruptive tag placed because the outcome of a talk was not satisfactory to some - Is the plan to leave a tag till people get their way? if it changes will the other side want a tag. this is not what is helpfull to Wikipedia only to help promote a POV WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.Moxy (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the close we have no concensus. When we have concensus for something there will no longer be a dispute. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

@John I didn't add the tag before because I didn't know that it existed, else I would have. Secondly, it appears that most of the editors on this page don't seem to understand what NPOV means and think it means something like "fair," "balanced," "non offensive," etc but this is not the case. NPOV means that we as editors take a neutral stance towards what reliable sources say. If sources say X and we say Y then it doesn't matter what Y is, it's a POV problem. While we should use Christian sources on this article we should not do so when they contradict the independent, academic sources, which is what "narrative" does. This page is clearly biased from a Christian POV and it's not right. We're Wikipedia, not conservapedia. N^oformation ^Talk 03:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This page appears to be biased towards a secular/very theologically liberal (i.e. secular) point of view to me: however, I make no attempt to change the focus, as the consensus seems to be that it is acceptable. Read literally, NPOV and WEIGHT would demand sections adding the traditional Christian and Jewish views, as well as the current conservative view; a literal reading of RNPOV says that (and this is stated verbatim in RNPOV, last paragraph) in the lead, we should have, for example, "Jews and Christians have traditionally held that Moses wrote the book of Genesis during the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. However, many academics of modern historical-criticism and philology, etc. have concluded that the Book of Genesis likely borrows from Mesopotamian creation myths, such as the Enuma Elis. Some believers, especially of mainstream Protestantism and liberal Roman Catholics, have accepted these conclusions, while the rapidly-growing ranks of Evangelicals, conservative Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and conservative Roman Catholics by and large have not, and have proposed alternate theories, such as those first used by the Church Fathers ~1800 years ago."

Christian and Jewish sources most definitely can be used, and can be independent and academic, as many here - Brueggemann, Wenham, Sarna - are. Otherwise would be tantamount to saying that a Christian can not do science! (or alternately) It can not be asserted that only atheists are independent sources for this article without at the same time asserting that only religious people are independent sources for articles dealing with atheism (as by the same criteria atheists are not independent sources when dealing with their own lack of beliefs). As I have asserted repeatedly, most (if not absolutely all) of the reliable sources for questions of exegesis of the Old Testament are going to be from Christian and Jewish exegetes. NPOV and WEIGHT together are about "balance" and "fairness", but not about "non-offensiveness" (that's NOTCENSORED). "Narrative" does not contradict "myth" in any way: it is not untoward to say that "narrative" is a piece of literature and "myth" is what is described in that literature, in this case. The Genesis creation narrative are the words of the Gen 1-2. The Genesis creation myth is the story/timeless truth/whatever that is contained within the words of the document (narrative) itself. As I stated above, the use of a certain neutral term by certain individuals was established in the RfM as having absolutely no bearing on whether the term itself is neutral (that's like saying that if Stalin used the word "communism", that is no longer an acceptable term to use), but only the dictionary definitions of the words (as I said, otherwise the use of "myth" by Dawkins et al. to categorically state "fairy tale falsehood" would disqualify it). "NPOV" is policy: "SPOV" (Scientific Point of View) is failed policy (and "Secular Point of View" or "Atheist Point of View" or "Theist Point of View" are all parts of NPOV and WEIGHT) which seems to be what you're trying to implement here, or how you are reading NPOV. It seems you have (or view the article as having) a RS and UCN problem (and there seems to be legitimate room for debate on what is the UCN in this case, as well as what are the most reliable sources), not a POV one. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 03:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Christian sources should not be avoided, and are not non-independent just for that reason. However, that does not mean that all Christian sources should be used, either. Being a Christian source has nothing to do with it, having a biased source does. When there are sources that use "Babylonian creation myth" and then within the same sentence use "Genesis creation account/narrative/truth", they are applying a different standard to their own religious views, and these sources are biased, incapable of describing the subject objectively and as such cannot and should not be given the same weight as sources that apply terms equally. - SudoGhost 16:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with JohnChrysostom as the Christian and current Jewish writings are actually independent of the subject matter. The only non independent writings here is the Bible itself. They are independent because they did not write the book of Genesis and do not appear in it. Just because they are treating it seriously does not give a conflict of interest. In any case the POV-title tag should not appear on the top of the article, as narrative is a neutral term. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Narrative constitutes POV if all other creation myths are referred to as myths and not narratives, and the reason for not calling it a 'myth' is because a bunch of people just don't like it. (Articles that are named for the title of a story are out of scope. As previously stated, if there is a specific title for the Genesis creation myth, then that would be an entirely suitable name for the article without an additional descriptor.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. If the terms are each neutral, then their use is neutral. Similar to WP:OTHERSTUFF, the fact that we use one term in one place does not allow us to say that must use that term in all other places if both terms are acceptable. -- Avi (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

But they are not "each neutral", because narrative is used to avoid using the correct academic term, and the reason for doing so is religious bias.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe when creation myth itself is defined as "a symbolic narrative". -- Avi (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont see why your so upset - the term narrative is much more degrading then myth. A "narrative" is simply telling a story and in my opinion is much more degrading them myth. At least myth indicates some sort of Academic process behind it. I personal believe that "myth" is better but if most what to simply call it a story that fine I guess

Mythology - the Academic study of stories

Narrative - what drunk uncle bob is tlaking about over dinner.Moxy (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not one of being degrading but of WP:NPOV. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm still struggling to understand why people think "narrative" is NPOV when creation myth itself is defined as a "symbolic narrative". -- Avi (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree - I see the problem here - we have a whole bunch of so called experts taking guesses. I find it odd that 2 words that mean the same thing can not be neutral. I see that this conversation is full of policy misinterpretations and lack of academic understanding of the topic at hand. Wish you guys all the best...back to genetic articles for me.Moxy (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because the word narrative is used in the creation myth article doesn't make them synonymous, in the same way that Literature does not mean "art", even though it's used in the definition. Creation myth means something independent of narrative; its additional context and meaning are why it's used prominently by independent reliable sources. Would it make sense to move Children's literature to Children's art (without changing scope) just because some people thought the word literature was offensive and meant the stories might not be true? If our sources say literature often, then we should follow the sources, and avoiding them just on the basis of possible offense creates a neutrality concern. Disregarding NPOV is a problem for neutrality, not because either word itself is more neutral, but because we're sidestepping policy to cater to religious sensibilities. That's a problem.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe your analogy is flawed. The start of the Literature article is "Literature (from Latin litterae (plural); letter) is the art of written work..." Art is immediately qualified as being of the written form, so no reasonable person would confuse the general "art" for the specific "literature". Wikipedia's own creation myth article, however, starts "A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it." The word "narrative" is not qualified, perhaps outside of being called "symbolic". But that itself is further qualified later in the creation myth article where it says "In the society in which it is told, a creation myth is usually regarded as conveying profound truths, metaphorically, symbolically and sometimes even in a historical or literal sense." in which case, it may not be symbolic but literal. There are many schools of thought that believe the story of Genesis to be literal, and not merely symbolic, which is why "narrative", even according to our own articles, is as neutral as myth, if not more so. The words "narrative" and "myth" are interchangeable in our own system in a way that "art" and "literature" certainly are not. -- Avi (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

A creation myth is not "a symbolic narrative.", it is "a symbolic narrative of how the world began". It is qualified in exactly the same way as "literature is the art of written work". Narrative does not mean creation myth.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It is already addressed by the word "creation" the same way that the word "myth" alone would be inappropriate (too general) without the qualifier "creation". -- Avi (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What? A phrase is not defined by itself. "A creation myth is a symbolic narrative" is incomplete. It is not just a symbolic narrative, and inclusion of "creation" in the phrase we're defining doesn't change that. It's a symbolic narrative of something specific, in exactly the same way that Literature is art of something specific. "Narrative" does not mean "Creation Myth", just as "Art" does not mean "Literature". They are not interchangeable.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

But "Myth" is incomplete too, it is "creation myth" that is the term you wish to use, which is exactly the same issue as the relationship between "narrative" and "creation narrative". There is nothing inherent in "creation myth" that is not inherent in "creation narrative", and "myth" without "creation" suffers from the same issue as "narrative" without "creation". I still fail to see where the term "creation myth" is any different in terms of denotation than "creation narrative" and any benefit it has over the term "creation narrative" where the latter term benefits from the lack of negative connotations. -- Avi (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Myth" is also not interchangeable with "Narrative". Myth denotes something very different, namely its ties to traditional and cultural themes. "Creation narrative" is not a term common in academia. AFAICT, its use is exclusive to Christian apologetics to avoid an unfavorable label. At best, it's a synonym with less prominence in the literature. At worst, its meaning is assumed from mashing two similar words together, which loses context on the historical, traditional and cultural significance of the work. Either way, it's a neutrality concern because we're making an editorial decision to use language distinct from our sources in violation of NPOV. We're using a less technical, less common, and potentially less meaningful phrase in service of a religious POV. I don't see how that's compatible with an academic encyclopedia. I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm trying to answer your question, "why is this a neutrality concern". That's why.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with Jess here. There is, in fact, meaning in "myth" that is not present in "narrative". Avramam says: 'myth' without 'creation' suffers from the same issue as 'narrative' without 'creation'"; this is poor logic, but is also false on its face. A narrative can refer to any sequential recounting; "myth" implies - at least - that there is some cultural or historical significance to both the phenomena or events described in the narrative, and to their sequencing. Thus, myth really is a more specific term on its own, and "narrative" as some well-intentioned Wikipedians are trying to use it here is unnecessarily vague, and possibly misleading. Are there any arguments against using "myth" here that are not based on one specific type of religious bias? I've been reading talk pages here for hours, and have yet to find any. [edit to add:] Furthermore (in an academic sense) myths need not be narrative; "myth" can also describe a grouping of phenomena and events without necessarily implying a linear, teleological sequence of retelling... So maybe some wonky construction like "mythological narrative" in the lede could satisfy some fols... but I doubt it. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Myth" in the news

This might interest people involved in the interminable debate over the word "myth". This is what people hear when they see the word myth. To use the word and not clarify it on the spot is a violation of WP:NPOV. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 11:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure we have a full understanding of what the meaning of this words are. I take it in the USA this is not talked about in school in a formal manner? Do they still teach creationism in the USA? From the Grade five text book we use in Ontario Canada.

Mody dick is a "narrative" about a big fish and an old man

Genesis creation "myth" is an account of the start of the (world) universe.Moxy (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually narrative includes both fiction and non-fiction. The issue is that "creation myth" is the word used by scholars and gives more information on the nature of it (i.e in essence, a set of cultural beliefs or similar, see comment by DigitalHoodoo in the section above)). IRWolfie- (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree - So why is this so hard for others to understand. As i asked before is this "narrative" stuff still in schools in the USA? Moxy (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes

This article does deal with a topic that is foundational to creationists, but more than all else, it deals with an important topic of Biblical exegesis. Is there any way to add one of the Bible infoboxes or templates or whatever it's called in the lead? Such as the one at Biblical canon? St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 12:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Include both viewpoints

Why not say that academics regard this narrative as blah blah blah while religious people regard it as yadda yadda yadda?

We can then go on to explain why academics use words like "myth" and Mythology; how they study ideas about the supernatural in the context of folklore and psychology.

We can also indicate the past and present degree of belief in the supernatural perspective on Creation.

In other words, do not say, "it is a myth" but instead, "academics classify it as a myth". --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Why academics use terms like myth is out of this article's scope. That's why we have articles like mythology and creation myth. This article, and other specific creation myth articles, do not need disclaimers for these terms.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I am adding a section(s) (in the normal definition of the term, not the wiki definition of a bold heading set off with four equals signs) - which I fully believe will be emended, amended, revised, and reverted freely as part of WP:BRD - in my rewrite about, "traditionally Jews/Christians have believed X...but recent discoveries/advances suggest/demonstrate Y....and group of believers Z accepts this, while group of believers A does not", to grossly oversimplify (it will be referenced... even most of the present references mention in passing "traditional" beliefs) in accordance with the last paragraph of RNPOV. However, I am not qualifying any terms, as ample consensus has been found for using the words in, and only in, the technical sense. Polls about the prevalence of belief in some form of creation (which I imagine is staggeringly high in America, probably over a supermajority: note, that I did not say nor mean literal seven-day 6,000 years ago) is not really on topic, IMO, but more fit for articles on creationism, or as a section of WEIGHT/popular opinion/prevalent beliefs in articles on Universe/whatever/sociology/psychology/philosophy of religion. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 14:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ed has a couple good points here - we should absolutely note that people consider the creation myth to be a literal history within the lede; that many, many people in consider it to be a "true" myth is a critical distinction of the Genesis myth that separates it from - say - the story of Auðumbla licking an ice block ;) However, I'd stay away from either long disclaimers or extra sections (per Jeffro's argument). Unless we butcher our language to meaninglessness, or succumb to self-censorship, it is - in fact - a myth, inside or outside academic circles. This is 'not a "religious people v. academics" issue - whether Genesis provides a true or accurate history of creation is entirely beside the point, it is still mythic. If people are confused or bothered by the term, they may easily click on a link to "creation myth" or "mythology' to learn why the story/history/narrative is mythic in character. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a policy like Wikipedia:Article scope which forbids us to describe the context in which terminology is applied? I think the intent of NPOV is to prevent anyone from thinking that we are giving an editorial endorsement of POV. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Check WP:OR. We don't create sections etc on points that aren't discussed in reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

But they are discussed in reliable sources - indeed, many of the same sources already used (Wenham and Brueggemann for two; if I considered the decision to let Ellen G White stand as a reliable source legitimate, that would open up a huge can of worms: but I don't, so I won't use anything that invalid). I am not adding uncited original research (I did that once as an IP editor and got reamed), and expect any uncited information, SYNTH, or OR to be promptly removed and for myself to be slapped with a trout if so. Mann_jess has said he will, if and when he has time, read/edit incremental portions of the rewrite as I post them in userspace; if he is unable to, I will work with someone else of civility and opposing viewpoint to make sure I don't get too far off the mark or carried away. And, even when I am done, it's still a work in progress - I don't WP:OWN the article, but I do want to improve some of the lack of information and the absolutely ghastly prose of the article as-is. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 17:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

On another note - if some editors want to use the word "narrative" as a synonym for any "story" or "account" - why not just use "story" or "account"? Even if we banish the term "myth" from the debate, "narrative" is still awkward and far from the best term, and the only reason to use it as the preferred term seems to be loading the article for POV. Finally, it's a key point that we can assume that secular scholarly sources are reliable, but we certainly cannot write this article under the assumption that the genesis story is true or likely to be true. Do we have any neutral RSs that support a literal biblical creation? Do we have a general scholarly consensus that is is, or is likely to be, true? No? Then we must assume its truth is dubious for the purposes of WP (not that is it untrue, of course; just that it is an unverifiable account). Now, if the scholarly consensus is that it is likely symbolic or untrue... DigitalHoodoo (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Are there any scholars nowadays who regard it a creation myth? If so, could we name a few? As in:

• Most modern scholars regard this narrative as a creation myth. Typical is Sucha Learnedman, professor of Biblical Studies at Vunderkind University, who writes: "The Genesis account is one of mankind's most beloved creation myths because it provides the hope of a life of unlimited blessing despite the tragic history that has blotted mankind since the fall."

Find a quote like this, but a real one, okay?

We might also at some point in the article indicate whether anyone still living takes the narrative literally rather than as a symbolic narrative. I wonder what Jewish or Christian believers think about this. Their viewpoint should be in the article, too. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Being literal has nothing to do with being a symbolic narrative, being symbolic has no bearing on whether it is symbolic or not, see below. - SudoGhost 02:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Symbolic

Use of the word symbolic was contested, diff: [16]. Most mainstream christian groups refer to the Genesis creation myth as being symbolic; they do not believe it literally; best example is the Catholic Church: plenty of sources in this article: Allegorical interpretations of Genesis. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC) −

I added "symbolic", and fully consent to it being removed (Jeffro did) for NPOV as well as stylistic reasons. Being a Catholic, Catholics are free to believe it in a literal sense or in a symbolic sense: the Church has taught no dogma on the issue, although certain commissions/Popes/etc. have expressed an opinion, not every statement of a Pope or commission defines an article of faith. I'm sure reference can be found for this, but it may be like proving a negative: Catholics do not have to believe in symbolically. The only dogmatic pronouncement that has been made is that "God generates the soul/life spontaneously for every life at the moment of conception", as a point which no further can be gone: further, Catholics range along the spectrum from young-earth to theistic evolution (however, the 1994 authorititative Catechism does teach that the fall and first parents are literally real - indicative of the range of beliefs amongst Catholics). Beyond that, there are many "mainstream" Christian groups (Evangelicals) who take it in a literal sense, which isn't hard to see in all of the exgetical commentaries used by such groups, or even a cursory look at the first pages of a study Bible. The so-called "mainstream" Christan groups (mainline/liberal Protestants) are shrinking rapidly, but, for some reason, they're still called "mainstream" when outnumbered by Evangelicals... I used to have a graph compiled out of ARIS statistics that showed the movement between four denominations (mainstream, evangelical, Catholic, traditionally black) and non-religious... I'll have to see if I can find it. One can still read the ARIS statistics, but it takes long and isn't as striking or as fun as a visual representation. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 14:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that there are not significant minorities that consider the account to be literal (or semi-literal, such as day-age creationists), or that it is essential to include symbolic in the opening sentence. However, the rationale provided by Avraham is flawed, because it makes the false claim that those who consider the account to be symbolic are mutually exclusive of the stated religious groups, which is overwhelmingly not the case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Seven day creationists are a fringe mostly-US group. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The wikilink to creation myth suffices as the very first sentence of that article contains the definition. If the wikilink is good enough that we do not have to qualify the definition as "in the academic sense" it is good enough to leave out the focus on "symbolic," especially as the article does state "A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it....In the society in which it is told, a creation myth is usually regarded as conveying profound truths, metaphorically, symbolically and sometimes even in a historical or literal sense." If we are going to say symbolic, it must be qualified, especially since, in terms of both volume of people and volume of written material, there are likely as many, if not more, who believe it literal than symbolic. IRWolfie, I understand you are a self-professed agnostic/atheist (your userboxes) so you come from a particular viewpoint, but we need to reflect the viewpoints of what is out in the world, which includes centuries, if not millenia, of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim biblical scholarship and not artificially promote the atheistic academic subset; at least in my opinion and, of course, I have a personal point of view as well that I need to suppress when trying to make the article as wiki-neutral as possible. -- Avi (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is simply not the case that all Christians, Jews and Muslims interpret the creation myth literally.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that not all, but a sizeable enough contingent to prevent wikipedia from taking a position (as opposed to flat earth, for example). Also, to re-emphasize, the wikilink addresses all of these points, and since we don't want to add all qualifications (academic, symbolic, literal), the link to creation myth is more than enough, as it addresses all of the sophisticated subtleties captured within the statement. -- Avi (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Some interpret it literally, some symbolically, in differing amounts over the years. I added "symbolic" (and, again, I do not object to its removal) as I do not believe it is mutually exclusive with "literal" (as events could have happened, and still have a symbolic significance, especially, for a Theist, with "God at the helm"; events can also be "finessed" to bring out greater symbolism; ancient Greco-Roman histories are full of this), and also to avoid my own POV, which is presented in userboxes on my userpage (semi-literal, tending towards literal). However, in avoiding my own POV, I inadvertently added something that could easily be interpreted as another POV (just not my own). I do applaud everyone, though, who makes their own POV clear with userboxes or on their userpage, as it makes what to look for, consciously or subconsciously, in their edits, more apparent. (The reason I added my own, for the most part, to broadcast my POV to make sure it's easily checked that I don't fall in to it - that, and some snark, about Jesus reading the King James Version.) I endorse Avraham's remarks about the sizable contingent - no one exegetical position has even close to a plurality, let alone a monopoly, amongst Christians nor Jews - as is seen from checking the glut of creationist sources and conservative commentaries. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 14:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

John, we are agreed that acknowledging personal point of view is helpful, and remembering that we all have points of view. Although I use categories instead of user boxes 8-) -- Avi (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Symbolic and literal interpretations are incompatible. What the catholic church teaches is that it is symbolic of an actual event, i.e a form of metaphor for the event. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that is a pure fabrication. The theologians of the catholic church teach that it is symbolic and not literal and I'd wager that the eastern orthodox teach the same. They represent the largest contingent of Christianity. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

John is correct, describing it as symbolic does not preclude the literal meaning in the text, it can be both symbolic and literal, they are not mutually exclusive terms in the context of a creation myth. As an example: "Anthropologists generally agree that myth is a symbolic text . . . which has a double meaning. The first one is a linguistic one on the surface where the story is interpreted in its literal sense . . . in this way religious myths are read by the believers. However, there also exists a second hidden meaning hidden in symbols . . . Symbolic narratives which constitutes myth expresses cultural issues through the double meaning of the text." - SudoGhost 14:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the catholic church takes it to be figurative not literal history.IRWolfie- (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

...okay? I'm not understanding what that has to do with my comment. It doesn't change the fact that it is a symbolic narrative, and being symbolic does not change the fact that it can also be taken literally. I made no comment as to who might read it as literal. - SudoGhost 14:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The Eastern Orthodox have no position (but most are a weird kind of literal-symbolic following Origen, in my experience: they actually have no central authority capable of issuing one), nor do the Catholics. What a specific theologian or group of theologians teaches is not the teaching of the Church: only a dogmatic definition of the Pope, an ecumenical council, or the constant teaching of the ordinary magisterium can make a position an article of faith. This is now a matter of Catholic faith and theology, to assert that the Catholic Church believes - that is, has defined - the Genesis story as non-literal, which is a patent falsehood. Plenty of Catholics believe it to be literal: the Catechism teaches that it really happened, and is described using "figurative language". The Catholic Church has no official teaching on the matter. See above the three, and only three conditions by which any view held by some Catholics - or even all Catholics - can become a teaching of the Church. (Five edit conflicts in a row. Damn.) St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 14:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Figurative and Literal are not compatible. The word figurative means Departing from a literal use of words; metaphorical.. That is by definition not literal. That is precisely what I said. Catholic church guidance is to teach it as metaphorical (for this primeval event) and not literal. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Figurative means symbolic, as you made the connection, and it has been established that they are not mutually exclusive. However: Paragraph 390: "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.". I don't see how that can be twisted in to other than "it really happened". What is meant by "figurative" is that it may not have been an actual bite from an actual fruit that was the sin, but that original sin traces back to an event committed by our first parents is affirmed. (However, the Catechism is only marginally more authoritative than a group of theologians: it is approved for the time being, but can be modified, and is not infallible, unlike Pope/council ratified by Pope/constant teaching of Magisterium.) Without trying to invoke credentials, I am a Latin-rite seminarian, and both interpretations are taught side-by-side (although seven-day 6,000-year-old creationism isn't - although Catholics are allowed to believe it too. Contrary to popular opinion, the Church is incredibly non-dogmatic about most things, except for a few that are always in the spotlight), and if I thought for one minute that Catholicism demanded that Genesis be understood as a purely symbolic story, I'd probably jump ship to the nearest LCMS seminary. (Edit: not really. I'm not that disloyal to the Church, but speak for hyperbole's sake.) St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 15:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: I do not contest that the symbolic interpretation is overwhelmingly common amongst Catholic theologians and exegetes (see Berit Olam), only that it is a teaching of the Church. What a Catholic or group of Catholics teaches or believes on anything other than dogmata is not the same as what the Catholic Church teaches. That's like saying individual Catholics who are a part of Catholics For Choice reflect the views of the Catholic Church, (the opposition to abortion actually isn't a dogma, but is very close to it, as it is seen as deriving from teleology/the natural law), or Hans Kung's opinions on Papal infallibility make the Pope fallible, as Hans Kung is still a priest in good standing - not excommunicated - merely not allowed to teach Catholic theology. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 15:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be conceded in the above discussion that many Eastern Orthodox do accept the Genesis narrative in their view of history (not to mention Oriental Orthodox) yet surely treating the Orthodox as part of a "minority fringe" would have to reflect a P.O.V. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The are very few Orthodox in America, or English-speaking Orthodox for that matter. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 15:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Most West Russians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Ukrainians etc. do in fact learn English as a second language, however -- either in school or by [believe it or not] watching television in English. Wekn reven 15:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not concede the point. It's taken, by the catholic church that there was a primeval event and that the genesis creation myth is an allegorical (aka symbolic) description of that event. This is a far cry away from literalism. I would wager most large Christian groups have a fairly similar interpretation to that of the catholic church. IRWolfie- (talk)

It is not a vote of numbers, but "significant minorities". (Actually, there was an actual primeval event, but the language - fruit, tree, God walking in Eden - is figurative, not that the event is; it talks of "first parents", and Adam and Eve are inextricably linked to creationism, and exclude theistic evolution). You are not an authority on what the Catholic Church teaches. You can prove nothing by assertion, as you are attempting to. You repeatedly assert, "this is what the Catholic Church believes". The Catechism believes differently, and I have provided a source: you have not, other than assertion. Find a source that tells me it's a dogmatic definition of what Catholics must believe, and not just a common opinion among individual Catholic theologians, and I'll eat crow and convert to Deism. The second-largest group of Christians in America are evangelicals, and I've never seen a symbolic-hermeneutic evangelical (although they may exist). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 15:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth, Orthodox, and I believe Conservative, Jews believe in literal reading of Genesis, but that is a much smaller group than Christians. -- Avi (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, right, John. English is spoken all over the world. But I guess 'Systemic Bias' means their viewpoint is not significant to this topic because English is not always their mother tongue, thus their faith and doctrines can be easily dismissed as "fringe". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, but I was trying to think of the first exception that IRWolfie would come up with.

I've removed symbolic and put my reason in the summary - it seems that IRWolfie is trying to make this a vote of numbers of teachings of denominations (as if automatically assuming that even if a billion Catholics take it one way - which, categorically, they do not - reflects on the other 1.2 billion Christians in the world) - literal is a significant minority viewpoint, and unqualified "narrative" does not exclude literal, symbolic, nor non-literal, and is thus not POV. However, as has been established, "symbolic" does not exclude literal either, so, if it is reverted, I will not war over it. (How odd that I'm taking up the defense of an edit originally made by Jeffro! :-). I do believe pipelinked with my current revision is the most neutral, but both are acceptable. (My main exception to all of this is that IRWolfie seems to be trying to tell me what my Church teaches/what I am required to believe: not with the wording of the article: sorry for going off-topic.) St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 15:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That a literal interpretation is a significant minority viewpoint has not been shown. That the catholic church takes it to be allegorical (it's irrelevant if it was stated dogmatically if it was they teach) was demonstrated by the catechism. There are 1.2 Billion Catholics. From the other 1 billion most denominations do not take the genesis creation myth literally but also as an allegory. By including the literalist fringe viewpoint you are promoting a particular POV. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You twisting words to prove by assertion has proved nothing. You are not the Pope and are not an ecumenical council. In any case, it is not a vote of numbers of the teachings of different denominations. That Genesis is literal, look up von Rad, Douglas K. Stuart in the NAC, Wenham in the WBC (he's in the both symbolic and real camp, just as the Catholic Church is: the Catholic Church teaches that it is a real, literal, actual, historical event described using figurative language: not that the event - the actual, literal, real, historical event - is figurative, but that it is not described in scientific terms complete with Einstein's field equations), and I believe the NICOT as well. It is a dominant viewpoint amongst evangelicals. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 15:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You are precisely arguing my own point. The church teaches that the real event is not described literally (i.e the events occurred exactly as written with no metaphors) but it is a metaphorically description of the actual "literal" real event. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

One of us is expressing himself very, very poorly, or interpreting equally poorly, as what I have understood you to have asserted the Church teaches and/or believes (without a single reference), the Church does not teach and/or believe. It's obvious that interpreting the Catechism is as fraught with exegetical difficulties as sola scriptura Protestants interpreting the Bible, if we can in good faith come away with polar-opposite, diametrically-opposed conclusions and interpretations. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 16:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

When I say the church teaches it I don't mean that it defines it dogmatically. I mean that if you attend a catholic church run school (that's what I regard as a place where the church teaches) they will teach you that it is allegory. When I say "the church" I mean the people that make up the catholic church; the laity, the priests etc of the catholic church. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - What does Orthodox Christianity have to do with "symbolic" being in the article? A creation myth is a symbolic narrative, not just a narrative, who believes it to be literal or not doesn't change this. It is not "either symbolic or literal, chose one". Symbolic is not a POV wording, it's one reliable sources use to describe both "creation myth" in general, and Genesis itself.[17][18][19][20] - SudoGhost 15:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for an intelligent comment. We're getting carried away in IRWolfie trying to issue a dogmatic definition of Catholic belief. It has nothing to do with it. As I mentioned in my last comment, and first put forth, symbolic and literal are not mutually exclusive as some are trying to assert, and I will not revert a reversion of my edit. Note, that I do not (and will never, until a dogmatic definition is issued one way or the other) concede the point on what some claim the Catholic Church teaches (as opposed to what individual Catholics are free to believe), but I have other stuff to be doing at the moment, but my silence is not a concession to proof by assertion. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 15:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

To show that there is difference of belief, and it is acceptable theological difference, and not dissent, Google "Catholic creationism", or look here, at this article from Catholic Answers, which has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, making it as "official" (that is, acceptable for Catholics to believe) as any other theologian's teaching. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 15:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The role of a neutral encyclopedia must NOT be, like that of the Council of Nicea, to arbiter by consensus whose religious doctrines are defined as 'fringe' (= heresy) and whose positions get the official wiki-seal of approval. That's why strict neutrality describing all the viewpoints must be our utmost concern. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but any belief of a literal interpretation (fringe or not) does not change the "symbolic" qualifier, as expressed by reliable sources. = SudoGhost 16:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia treats fringe viewpoint with less due weight than mainstream views WP:FRINGE, weight being decided through reliable sources. However, if an article is written about a well-known topic, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What does this have to do with "symbolic" being in the article or not? - SudoGhost 16:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's another one with imprimatur. They're endless. Please read them, or even browse that site - it appears all of the articles have imprimatur. Anything with imprimatur is "as official" as anything else. You have a very poor grasp of Catholic theology and teaching and what makes what what. Again, what a specific theologian or group or predominance of theologians teaches is not the teaching of the Church. Unlike in Protestantism, where individual theologians can hold infinite sway at any time, only what is defined as a teaching of the Church is a teaching of the Church. If two contradictory teachings both have imprimatur, both are acceptable, and neither can be an official teaching, as the Church can not teach contradiction. The Catholic Church allows for differences of opinion on creation. You hold one opinion, and are not even a member of the Church: however, it is not the only opinion, nor official teaching, and you have yet to provide a single source, but you keep attempting proof by assertion. Are you trying to goad me in to rule-breaking behavior? St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 16:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you stop making up arguments I never made. I never said it was taught as doctrine. It is generally accepted by catholics that it is allegory. That the church allows for different viewpoints is irrelevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I can appreciate the argument that a lot of people consider the Genesis story to be symbolic. But quite a lot of people think it is plain nonsense. Maybe we could put that word in the lead instead? --FormerIP (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant, because the Church doesn't teach it. That some theologians do is no different than that some theologians (Hans Kung) teaching the Pope is fallible. It is not generally accepted by most Catholics to be symbolic, but neither of us can demonstrate such without polling a representative sample of Catholics (and first determining who is a Catholic) to find their opinions. FormerIP is right, that the entire debate is irrelevant, but it is a damn good debate. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 16:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The opinion of the laity is irrelevant when we're discussing Catholic dogma. The official position of the Church is that the creation myth is metaphorical. The Vatican supports evolution, coupled with a variety of Intelligent Design (that differs significantly from the Michael behe / American Evangelical type of ID). My source: er... 12 years of Catholic school; a lot of conversations with clergy. I can dig out my Catechism if it is really necessary. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx The US believers also tend to be more literal than Europeans. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There we have our answer. It's a "49% symbolic, 30% true and 21% nonsense narrative, according to Americans". --FormerIP (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should be relying only on what reliable sources call it. If reliable sources say it is symbolic then that is what we should say. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And other reliable sources say it is literal (I can probably find any number of biblical scholars over the past 2000 years who believe it literal). Since both are supported by reliable sources, and since the wikilink links to the definition which discusses this in more detail, we should use the link and let the interested reader follow up. Otherwise, we should start putting in the "academic" qualifier and other qualifiers as well, and next thing you know, we'll be piping in the entire lead of creation myth which is overkill. Let wikilinks do their job. -- Avi (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, reliable sources use symbolic narrative to describe Genesis, and what we should do is reflect reliable sources. That reliable sources exist that say it is literal is not an argument against the use of "symbolic", because symbolic does not preclude a literal interpretation, which has been shown through a reliable source above. There are a great many reliable sources that describe Genesis as a "symbolic narrative", I'm not aware of any that say Genesis is not one. - SudoGhost 17:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. The apartment next to mine was on fire. I agree with Sudo for the purposes of wording the article - symbolical does not preclude literal, which I first pointed out, we have a reliable source stating as much, and many scholars as far back as Augustine have considered it symbolical (and he was a young-earth creationist), in the sense of the four senses of Scripture. I don't think that "symbolical" is needed (if you look, I was the first to add symbolical and the last to remove it... screw you, Plato, for convincing me to go where the arguments leadeth), but if it satisfies more editors/consensus, I find it to be acceptable. There are no scholars that I can think of, in any time of history, who would have called it literal only, while excluding any deeper symbolical meaning as well - to do such would be to read Scripture in an incredibly superficial way. I do not concede that the Catholic Church teaches a purely symbolic/purely non-literal/fictional/allegorical/whatever position, only that it teaches no position, and that individual theologians teach that there is a deeper symbolical meaning to the true (possibly phenomenologically-described) account of Genesis (see "the four sense of Scripture" - Wiki doesn't have an article on it, I should write one). However, as has been pointed out, the relevance of the Catholic Church's teaching to this debate is zero (until a section of "Genesis and Theology" about "Catholic Church and Genesis" is added). I also thank FormerIP IRWolfie for the posting of the poll, which, while useless for this article (or determining what Catholics believe or the Church teaches), is interesting, especially since I asserted in an earlier discussion, tangentially, that "probably more than a supermajority of Americans believe in some form of creation" or something like that. Who doesn't like being right? St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 17:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Piping creation myth

Woah... a lot of changes popped in since I signed off yesterday. I don't know how I feel about piping creation myth if we're not using "Genesis creation myth" as the title. I think the term "creation myth" is a really important one to use, here; it's descriptive in a way no other label is. If we're saying "The Genesis creation narrative (or SomeOtherName) is the symbolic narrative...", then we're omitting creation myth from the def, and saying it's just some other (less common) label for the standard description of narrative. I don't think that's in line with the sources. I understand the desire to eliminate redundancy, but we need to be careful we're not fundamentally redefining the subject just for flow.

If we do pipe creation myth to some other phrase, which I don't think we should, then at a minimum we need to use the definition of creation myth (or recognizable academic synonym, if there even is one). The definition of creation myth is a symbolic narrative of origins. By removing "symbolic" and making other changes to that def, we're no longer simply changing the wording for flow, but instead redefining the concept based on the synthesis of sources which say "Genesis is a creation myth" and "Genesis is literal".   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Only on this article can four and a half words count as "Whoa, a lot of changes!" Is that what they mean by stagnation and the BRDDDDDDDDD cycle? :-D I decided to take the advice on that page and not let more than 24 hours pass without a BOLD change, else it becomes harder and harder to get the article changed, the stable version becomes sacrosanct, and ceases to be a work in progress. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 18:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Well, I was also talking about the reverts and the multiple new sections on the talk page. Making changes isn't bad, I just wasn't expecting that much movement over a few hours :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Jess said: "The definition of creation myth is a symbolic narrative of origins. By removing 'symbolic' and making other changes to that def, we're no longer simply changing the wording for flow, but instead redefining the concept based on the synthesis of sources which say 'Genesis is a creation myth' and 'Genesis is literal'". Apparently, this part of the argument got lost? Really, this is the core issue. Keeping "creation narrative" (without what I feel are awkward and unnecessary qualifiers) as the primary term over "creation myth" (even if both terms are doubleplus bold in the lede) for page title, body text, etc., is still wonky and inaccurate at best, POV at worst... DigitalHoodoo (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I made the changes, trying to work with BOLD edits towards something that more people would find acceptable: I figured placing both terms in the lead was a good place to start, and further, that having Genesis creation myth in bold in the lead was good enough. It read really, really poorly as "The Genesis creation narrative or Genesis creation myth is a creation myth..." (not to mention I did that one last night and was reverted): that's why I piped it. As I've stated above, I'm not against "symbolic" being in there: that was my original choice included in my edit, which was then changed by Jeffro (I'm not sure for what reasons, but, as I thought about it, both for style and neutrality, as a sizable minority does hold it to be literally true), I supported/did not revert the change, found myself supporting Jeffro's edit against my own for two hours, then deduced that symbolic and literal are not mutually exclusive (as some asserted), was then presented with reliable sources to that effect, came full circle, had a neighboring apartment burn down, and then had a massive off-topic debate on what constitutes a teaching of the Catholic Church, and now am typing this message. If "symbolic" has not been re-added, feel free to do so. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 18:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I saw some of that. No worries (and sorry about the apartment). I appreciate the efforts to improve flow, and I agree that the previous redundancy was choppy. As I mentioned above, I'm just wary of redefining the topic on the basis of flow. Since we're using "narrative" as the primary title, I think explicitly saying creation myth is important for the definition, since it is recognizable, descriptive, and prevalent in the academic literature. I'd rather not revert it myself, especially since a lot of editors above have already looked it over and (tenatively?) approved, but I think we should have a discussion about it explicitly. I'll leave it open for others to comment. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As John says, we have Genesis creation myth in bold in the first sentence, which is rather explicit :) -- Avi (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, just to clarify, the part that says "Genesis creation myth" isn't defining the subject. It is proposing an alternate, less common, label for the definition we're supplying later. For instance, if we said "A cat (or kitten) is a domestic animal...", we're not saying a cat is the same as a kitten. If we said "A cat (or small kitten)", we're not saying a cat is small. By piping creation myth, we're removing the term from the actual definition, and I think it's very important to have it in the definition. Is that clearer?   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You're more lucid at the moment, Jess, so I won't add anything else :) but, I agree strongly on this point. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the analogy is more like "Canis canis, or, a dog...", in which case the problem seems to disappear to my eyes. When I read it, it does seem to be defining the subject, but as I've said ad nauseam, I am not opposed to adding symbolic and making it a verbatim copy of the definition on the creation myth page. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 19:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are not opposed to making the definition a verbatim copy of creation myth, then why are you opposed to calling it a creation myth??? This makes no sense. The one and only reason to stick hard with this "narrative" nonsense is to pander to a sentiment that goes: "unlike all other creation myths, this one is/might be a true and complete history". As is easily seen from the creation myth article, there is nothing that devalues literalist beliefs in the use or definition of "myth". I am really having a harder and harder time understanding how this is an issue at all... DigitalHoodoo (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, unlike Canis lupus familiaris v. dog, "creation narrative" is not the preferred term for "creation myth" outside of specific, biased disciplines. In both popular and scholarly discourse "creation myth" is, both the most familiar and the most correct term. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait a tick - isn't binomial nomenclaturism a specific, biased discipline? As everyone else, without exception, calls it a dog, or "man's best friend". No one hits baseballs to the Canis lupus familiaris. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 20:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, and noone says "creation narrative" unless they're working in specific disciplines (or writing for specific audiences) that would oppose the use of the standard term - "creation myth" DigitalHoodoo (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

One reason of many several a few more I'll think of </sarcasm> is that the narrative is the literary structure (including technical exegetical questions, which this article mainly attempts to deal with) of the myth as actually present in the text of the first chapters of Genesis, and the myth is what is contained within that narrative, including the meanings of it, the interpretations, etc. (I think I was the only one to bring this one up), and that this is a subtle but present and important distinction made in the literature (as I have studied, studied, and studied Genesis, having personally read more than a third of the works in the bibliography). As "form is meaning", narrative is the form, or container, and has meaning of its own; myth is the contained, or the substance. I do not believe creation myth is biased (my original objections, long before the RfM, had to do with people misunderstanding the term, negative connotations, and attempting to end endless vandalism: I have been disabused of the first and the last of those notions, but still hold to the second, while understanding that it is mostly abrogated and rendered null by policy), as I have read much of CS Lewis, who puts an invariably positive spin on "Christian myth". Nor do I believe "narrative" is biased, and is more suited to the content of the article. If the article dealt mainly not with the text of the narrative, but instead with interpretation (as in "Allegorical interpretations of Genesis", the four senses of Scripture, etc., much as Lewis did when he spoke of myths) I would not be opposed to it being entitled "GCM" instead of "GCN": however, I doubt the article will ever be of that type, since it is almost invariably laden with WP:OR. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 20:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Er... Yes. narrative is the literary structure of the Genesis creation myth. I think I understand you here - if we were working with an article titled "Creation in Christianity", then "myth" would be more appropriate; but, because this article is solely concerned with the literary structure of the creation myth it retells (rather than the substance of the myth itself), "narrative" must be more appropriate? If that is the case, I'd agree... Honestly, if I am coming to an article on "Genesis creation myth/narrative," I expect the content will describe the biblical account of creation / cosmogony, and not be exclusively devoted to the literary form of that myth... but maybe I'm wrong, and that is the intent of this article? DigitalHoodoo (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I maintain there are no negative connotations to "myth". I'm not sure where that comes from, or why we should be respecting it; if some users will read the word and get hot and bothered because it does not expressly affirm the literal and unquestionable truth of seven day creation... well, that can't realyl be helped, can it? I'm not being sarcastic at all; I think that people taking genuine offense to the term "myth" must be considered a fringe group. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) First, as I stated above, I understand that my personal objections to myth on negative connotations I understand to be severely truncated, if not completely abrogated and nullified, by policy. Now, continuing to my original monster of a post: As far as I can tell, you understand correctly. If you read the article, you'll see the damn near only things it deals with right now beyond repeating the text of the Bible are exegetical questions about specific Hebrew words in the current form of the textual narrative (that is to say, it is predominately concerned with the literary form of the myth), as the myth has been in this narrative container as we now have it since 500 years before Christ at the latest. It deals little with the mythology as mythology (say, how CS Lewis in The Great Divorce handled the mythology of Hell). I'm not over at Christian mythology trying to get it moved to Christian narrations, am I? When I am done with my rewrite (indeed, that is a main problem I am hoping to rectify, that vast tracts of the article repeat the Biblical text with sub-study-Bible quality quasi-exegetical annotations), we can see if it deals more with Genesis mythology per se (as I can not include the cosmogonies of the Psalms or Job in it for reasons of scope), and, at that time, you may find me amenable (or leading a push) to move this to "Genesis creation mythology", or to fork it in to several articles (any, some, or more of the below, working titles): the current, dealing with exegesis and form; GCM, dealing with content; Genesis in theology, dealing with interpretations and the impact in Christian and Jewish theology; Historical interpretations of Genesis, dealing with what it says on the tin; and Old Testament creation mythology, including the cosmogonies from all parts of the OT (or, if I can find enough RS, separate ones for Job creation narrative/mythology and Psalms creation narrative/mythology, but I doubt there's enough meat to justify separate articles for them), as, under my loquacious, verbose, long-winded and never-ceasing hand, the article has more than almost quadrupled in size from ~70k prose to over 240k with refs, and I'm about a third of the way through (which is at best a disorganized stub: I will need to edit and trim it substantially while fleshing out the cites before posting even the alpha0.1 version to userspace; I'm not making the changes as I go and then editing, and then uploading to userspace as 1) I don't want to get bogged down in debates on everything in trivial issues (such as this two-month long debate about the first sentence of the lead) and never finish; let all of the debates, WP:BRD, revisions, and reversions come at once when I'm done, and 2) I don't want to reduce the article from B-class while it is live. That was one mother-fucker of a sentence, and I actually think it's grammatically adequate (if it isn't, please point it out, because I just ran in to German-language lengths with that behemoth). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 22:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you're wrong (about the intent of the article), but somewhere along the way it got side-tracked in to a theologically liberal, very, very basic exegetical commentary with a dearth of actual Hebrew which glosses over most of the text, spends an inordinate amount of time on "bara" and a few other transliterated words, and touches a few other subjects seemingly as afterthoughts (for credit where credit is due, I think virtually all of the good stuff was put here by User:PiCo). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 22:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Sorry it took you so much writing - I appreciate it, and think we're pretty clear now. Hmm... You've got me thinking; I'm going to withdraw for a bit and see where others want to take this. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Was it grammatically correct? If so, I just managed to write a hundred-word circa two-hundred-fifty(!) word Ciceronian Latin sentence in English. Time to call Guinness, and drink a Guinness. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 22:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't use the pipe as an excuse to write ridiculously verbose blather that pleases no one. If there is reason to think this story isn't a creation myth, explain so that editors can remove it. Otherwise, KISS (keep it simple, stupid). 24.215.188.24 (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move: Genesis creation narrative → Creation story in Genesis

Genesis creation narrative → Creation story in Genesis – WP:COMMONNAME recommends, “the most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources." I get 528 post-1990 English-language Google Book results for "genesis creation narrative", plus 597 results for “creation narrative in Genesis." This compares to 2,020 results for "genesis creation story", plus 3,110 results for "Creation story in Genesis". That's 1,125 results for "narrative," 5,130 results for "story". For those who prefer a more visual presentation, this ngram shows "story" trumping both "narrative" and "myth". Jacques Doukhan's The Genesis Creation Story: Its Literary Structure (1978) is a classic scholarly work on this subject. One advantage of putting the word “creation” first is that many reference works title their entry on this subject as simply creation. See Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary (p. 316), Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, Browning's A Dictionary of the Bible, and The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. So "story in Genesis" can be interpreted as a form of disambiguation. Kauffner (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Survey

• Don't you feel that there is too much discussion on the name of the article? In any case the proposed name is OK by me, but so is the current name, so a change is pointless. So overall oppose Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Jesus Christ, another RfM? I strongly oppose (struck strongly because this page is already full of enough strong opinion, and I'm worn out from the last one) just because it's too soon after the last one, and we were finally getting back to working on the article. All of these RfMs are distracting from actually writing an encyclopedia: I expect you to find little support for this move here. Genesis creation story is also not widely used in the academic sources, such as exegetical commentaries (WBC, OTL, Interpretation, Berit Olam, International Critical, Continental, NICOT, etc.), and this article focuses almost entirely on exegetical commentary. See also my above long comments elucidating why I support the article at "narrative" with its current focus, and opposed myth (for the time being - I will likely initiate a move to "myth" if my rewrite goes according to plan). "Story" serves no purpose whatsoever, and muddies the waters - a story can be either the narrative container or the myth contained. As was pointed out to me by the proponents of moving, a mere Google result is useless for gauging reliable sources. I suggest you look at some of the ones in the bibliography instead (although, notably, they do carry a bias, and some such as Ellen G White are outright unreliable). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 06:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait a tick - that's dishonest. I checked the sources. Oxford has no mention of the word "story". Browning explicitly defines it as a "myth". Encyclopedia of science and religion does not use the word "story" once (it uses "history" several times), and also speaks of creation myths in general as myths - it gives no special mention of or focus of Christianity, only "Abrahamic faiths". Under "further reading", it says:

"Creation Stories

People have long wondered how the world came into being. They have answered the question with stories that describe the origin of the universe or the world and usually of human life as well. Creation myths,

known as cosmogonies, express people's understanding of the world and their place in it.

Which is a more biased source than any we have here - and it uses the dreaded neutered language. If it is possible, as it is in AfD, I move for a speedy close/keep of this under incorrect assumptions/misrepresentation of sources or whatever the applicable criteria are. Sorry about this, proposer, I don't think I've seen your name here before, but you steeped in to a snake pit here - everyone has learned to be wary in the past twenty score RfC/M/D/Arb/Cabals. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 06:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• As "story" and "narrative" are, for all intents and purposes, synonyms what purpose is served by the move? What does the newly proposed title add that is critical to the article. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose "in Genesis" is more limiting than "Genesis creation whatever" as the Genesis account is echoed elsewhere. Agathoclea (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Since sources and NPOV don't matter anymore, why not? It's just as neutral as "narrative," likely has the same amount of academic support and so long as a 2/3rds majority support it, Keegan will close it as a move. N^oformation ^Talk 09:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

RM closure

It's certainly not an original strategy: Post a bunch of sleazy personal attacks and then close the discussion to prevent a reply. The substance of the RM had nothing to do with the "myth" issue, so there should be no need for me to dwell on that. (However, I did put "myth" on the ngram if anyone wants to see how it graphs.) The references provided support the proposed title by giving the name of this subject as creation. Kauffner (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the close as the closer should not have been closing as they were involved (OK, that link applies to admin actions but the same principle applies here and is also spelt out in the closure instructions). Personally I think the new RM is significantly different to the last one to let it run it's course but I've only skim read that one so if another more knowledgeable uninvolved editor (by which I mean not commented on any RM or similar here) thinks the grounds already been covered then I wouldn't object to an early close. Dpmuk (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)