Talk:Genesis creation narrative

First sentence

I'm suggesting this for the first sentence: Creation according to Genesis is the Hebrew Bible's sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form.

This avoids the word "myth" while still using the academic definition of myth. Given the popular interpretation of "myth" as "fiction", I think this is desirable.

Rossnixon in a recent edit changed it to this: Creation according to Genesis is the Hebrew Bible's narrative explaining how the universe, world and life on earth came into existence. My problem with this is: (a) it's definitely a sacred narrative, as it puts God at the centre of the story; and (b) the idea of "universe" is a modern one - lots of planets and solar systems and galaxies whirling through space. That's not what the ancients thought of at all. Oh, I'll add (c): the Genesis story concentrates not just on how the world came into existence - it could stop at day 6 if it did that - but on how the new creation related to God: a day of rest and marriage. It's not just a story, it's a story with a message. PiCo (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not desirable. In fact it's in violation of the NPOV policy, in particular WP: RNPOV. I ask that you please review this section. Avoiding the term myth for the reason you've indicated is as silly as avoiding the term theory in scientific articles. Having said that, I prefer:

''Creation according to Genesis refers to the creation myth found in the first book of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Genesis.

Or something along those lines. Obviously the creation myth article is highly relevant and should be included as such. Ben (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If we just say "myth" it tends to raise hackles and people react without thinking. On the other hand I have no problem with an embedded link to the article on creation myths. How about an embedded link: Creation according to Genesis is the Hebrew Bible's sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form. PiCo (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, and as such I think your suggestion goes against some pretty hefty principles that any good encyclopedia should stand for. I don't care about some heckler on a talk page anywhere near as much as I care that an article is presenting knowledge completely indifferently to said heckler. In fact, an attitude of ooh, well this knowledge tends to raise hackles, so lets censor, hide or otherwise obfuscate it in some way is, in my mind, offensive, and as far as Wikipedia is concerned, non-neutral. My suggestion is unchanged from above. Ben (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ben Tillman says on his Talk page that he is an atheist. I say on my Talk page that I am a Christian. Obviously, we both are committed to our respective views, meaning that it may take extra effort to not allow our worldview paradigms affect our edit views. I know that to be true for me. Numerous times I have had to forcefully lay aside my personal convictions to edit an article that contained views to which I am sympathetic, but which were not NPOV. I'm sure that's true of all good Wiki editors. But forcing the word "myth"—as if everyone knows that we are using a much lesser-known definition of the term, and it they don't, it's high time that they learn it!—doesn't seem to equate to NPOV. I guess Encyclopedia Brittanica must not know about the "pretty hefty principles that any good encyclopedia should stand for. " Many scholarly articles and books on this subject very successfully avoid "myth. " User PiCo has, IMO, skillfully avoided it in our article.

In Talk:Creation–evolution controversy, I have already provided a reputable source that points out how the word "myth" predisposes many readers of Judeao-Christian persuasion to be on the defensive before they read on. One reviewer (Justin Topp, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Biochemistry, University of Texas-Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390-9038) has written of the book, Evolution and Religious Creation Myths: How Scientists Respond.: "The authors describe creationism and intelligent design as myth and unscientific.... Reducing, if not misrepresenting, ID (Intelligent Design) in such a manner makes it easier for the authors to argue against ID, but it clearly does a disservice to the movement and diminishes the integrity of the book for ASAers.... The issues noted and the other capable offerings available make it difficult to recommend this book."

Knowing that "myth" riles many readers and starts them off with a negative predisposition, why must "myth" appear in the very first sentence? Why in the very first paragraph? A matter of one editor's principle is insufficient justification. Should we trade liberal or atheistic preference for true neutrality in a really good article that we want people to be able to read with an open mind? Or to ask it another way: will anyone not continue reading the Encyclopedia Brittanica article just because the word "myth" does not appear in the first few sentences, nor anywhere in the article??? "Myth" in the lede biases many potential readers who are neither hecklers nor hicks: "Warning: if the writers of this article label not only "creation" but Genesis—and probably, then, the whole Bible—to be a "myth," there's no need to waste my time trying to sort out creation vs evolution. I can see from the start where "they" are headed. And if they knew that the strongest proponent of "myth upfront" approach so disrespectfully labels a fellow editor "some heckler on a talk page," not exactly in the finest tradition of Wikipedia etiquette, would that make them any more likely to trust the article's neutrality?

I strongly oppose the use of the word "Myth", since is this purely a POV, we all know that there at least two schools of thoughts regarding creation, so this article should identify the various rejections, but keep in mind that the topic again is "Creation according to Genesis"

We can just easily have "Creation according to Darwin" --Paul Lewison (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support PiCo's edits. I disagree that his edits "censor, hide or otherwise obfuscate it in some way." He just doesn't wave the red flag in the face of the bull. Afaprof01 (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Negative book reviews of a book that considers intelligent design a myth (nonsense, though it clearly has its roots in one) and unscientific (completely true) have no weight here what-so-ever. I've already cited Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible, and our policy WP:RNPOV. The WP:WEIGHT requirements of RNPOV are satisfied by the following:

David Strauss's claim that many of the gospel narratives are mythical in character, and that "myth" is not simply to be equated with "falsehood" — have become part of mainstream scholarship. -- Marcus Borg here.

As such, this matter is completely resolved by our policies and those accompanying reliable sources (more reliable sources can be provided, but unless you have a good reason for demanding more I doubt I'll go out of my way). Given that, I'll now restore the first sentence and ask you to note that the onus is on you to present a solid argument for it's removal that doesn't involve petty edit warring. Cheers, Ben (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what Afaprof01 just did, he seems to have refactored other people's contributions in the edits just before Ben's above, or have I missed something? Dougweller (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he just put a space in between my indent colons and replies, which may have confused the wiki a bit. I don't see any obvious changes in content so I don't think it's a problem. Cheers, Ben (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Christian but I recognize that the formal definition of myth does not imply an untruth. (Should the article link to that definition?) Also, I would like to point Ben's attention to WP:WTA#Myth_and_legend: the language used surrounding the term "myth" should make it obvious that we use it in a formal sense, not the informal meaning of "a false belief".
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 22:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that the Creation Myth article to which the words link is well written and serves to broaden the subject from a cross-cultural viewpoint. Removing said words and link in the name of making one creation myth sound more "true" than the other creation myths would not do this article any justice and only spur further POV and Bias arguements. Nefariousski (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree strongly with this. It should stay as myth. I'm sorry if it seems a red flag in front of a bull to some people but is no more that than removing SWT etc because of WP:MOSISLAM which also offends some Muslims. Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be the "Bible is myth" crowd's fallback argument, the one "Bible is myth" folks keep falling back on when all else fails, but I still fail to understand it. It sounds like some kind of emotional argument, or fallacy coming from your POV. Can you please elucidate further, so that others who don't share your point of view, might also understand it? How exactly is it comparable to removing SWT from Muhammad's name? It seems more directly analogous to the principle that we don't use offensive racial epithets to describe different races here. If you're ging to introduce a slippery slope argument, where do you draw the line? It's not a case of going extra miles out of our way or bending over backwards either to show respect (SWT) or disrespect (racial epithets, or calling widespread religious beliefs you don't share "myths"). It's a choice between picking a less offensive synonym, or a more offensive, POV-laden, and ambiguous one. It seems to me that a few editors preferring the more offensive and disputed term for whatever reason, is more a case of going out of our way to offend. The fallacy here seems to add up to "It just wouldn't be neutral not to offend, so instead we ought to go out of our way to offend - now that is neutrality." 71.253.143.203 (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you editing logged out by mistake? I presume you are, and are aware of WP:AGF. And, by the way, neutrality is not what we aim for, it is WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get an explanation of your logic here, and I'm struggling to understand how you can possibly describe your point-of-view as a "neutral" one. It doesn't seem at all like logic, seems like a complete throwback to a less tolerant era. Perhaps the fact that the offensiveness concerns other people's beliefs, rather than their ethnicity, is clouding your perspective. Try it like this: "People from Slobovia say they are offended by the term 'Slow-boes'. But they ARE Slow-boes, and that's what we should call them, because that's what they really are. Look, we have fifteen books that all agree that they ARE Slow-boes and that this is not offensive, and OUR books are right, while all the books that say this term is offensive, are just plain wrong, and were probably written by Slow-boe lovers anyway. So despite the fact that they don't like being called Slow-boes, wikipedia should definitely use this term, because it just wouldn't be at all NPOV to accede to their POV and call them Slobovians." 71.253.143.203 (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's where you're right dear IP editor, we are falling back on "The bible is a myth" because that's how all creation stories are listed and identified on Wikipedia. And from an encyclopedic point of view it is a myth, just like the Norse myth of creation and the Hindu and the ancient Egyptian. It helps maintain NPOV that none of the creation myths are categorized differently from one another. So whether you believe the earth was vomited up by a giant turtle or hatched from a interstellar egg or was conjured up by a wizard in the clouds is irrelevant because an encyclopedia doesn't take sides or opinions nor should it cater to one group's religious ideologies or sensitivities over anothers. Nefariousski (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Refering to the Genesis narrative as a "myth" in the first sentence is definitely POV and a failure to maintain an impartial tone. Though there is a definition of myth where this is an accurate statement, one could say the same to justify opening the Bill Clinton article saying, "Bill Clinton was born a bastard on August 19,1946." Most readers will believe that calling the narrative a myth in the opening sentence is making an assertion that the narrative is false, because the most common usage of "myth" suggests falsehood. Certainly, at later points in the text, the term "myth" can be used if it is properly identified as an attributed point of view. See: WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. When using "myth" to describe a religious narrative, it must be clear that it is being used in the formal sense. Usage in the opening sentence is ambiguous, and thus prohibited by the WP:NPOV policy.Michael Courtney (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would call attention to Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_that_label which would seem to apply here. In particular, it suggests the following test: 'The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral.' --agr (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue shouldn't be one of what this article labels the "creation myth" but with the creation myth article itself. If the term is deemed inappropriate then the creation myth article should be changed. Calling the biblical account a "Creation Narrative" while other faiths' accounts are called "Creation Myths" is where your WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV truly comes into play. When the "Creation Narrative" words link to "Creation Myth" article it defeats the purpose entirely. Go to Creation Myth and get that name changed first.Nefariousski (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Defeats the purpose" - What purpose - you mean to deliberately enflame and offend with an "outside word"? When there are clearly more NPOV alternatives? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose is to truly be neutral. Wikipedia does not view the bible story as a narrative while viewing the Koran as a myth or the nordic version as a myth etc... The article Creation Myth contains all of the various cultures stories regarding creation and to hold one above the others by labelling it a "narrative" on the surface while it still links to the creation myth article is dishonest at best and only masks your concern about the "myth" labeling. Articles link to other articles and should do so in the most transparent manner possible, your personal opinions and sensitivities aside. While I agree with you that "Myth" isn't necessarily the best word to use it is currently the article to which the link redirects and should clearly show as so. Users who are obviously skewed towards a religious belief (per their user profiles) only contribute to the systemic bias that is so common in bible related articles in english Wikipedia and as such their contributions and opinions tend to push POV. The only truly neutral solution is to label references to the article by the article's name and if the article's name is poorly worded then that article should be changed.Nefariousski (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give examples of these other articles where you say the scriptures of other major world faiths (such as the Quran) are defined as "myths". There's a good chance I'd oppose that usage just as strongly on those articles, because in most cases there is a good deal of opposition on the record against having the scriptures of any given religion labeled as "myth". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

how about the creation myths page?Nefariousski (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... i wonder how many users would feel more comfortable if that page were renamed "creation narratives"? Sounds far more NPOV, I'd say... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Your colloquial examples of the word "myth" on your user page do not trump the formal meanings adopted by Wikipedia as a matter of agreed upon policy (once again feel free to read WP:WTA#Myth_and_Legend). If you want to change the usage of the word "myth" do so at the source article and not the articles that reference said source.Nefariousski (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Says you. Somehow I don't think it's going to be that easy or clear-cut. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Says Me? How about Says Wikipedia Policy. I'm not pushing my opinion here, I'm just trying to make the article comply with already long debated and agreed upon policy. Nefariousski (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying there is "consensus"? Where? I'm confused - do you mean 'consensus' as some kind of doublespeak, or 'consensus' in the English language sense of "no significant opposition"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I mean "consensus" as in there is an already accepted Wikipedia guideline that clearly supports the use of the word "myth" in the case of creation myth. Feel free to read it here WP:WTA#Myth_and_Legend. If you're not interested in reading through the article I'll quote it for you:

"Formal use of the word (Myth) commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception. However, except in rare cases, informal use of the word should be avoided, and should not be assumed....

Furthermore, be consistent; referring to "Christian beliefs" and "Hindu myths" in a similar context may give the impression that the word myth is being used informally."

So to clarify, we can't call all other faith's beliefs about the origin of the world "Myths" and not the Judeo-Christian brand. It clearly says we need to be consistent and since the article creation myth is what we are linking to and it is a catalogue of all creation myths we need to be consistent. I hope you understand that this isn't a POV attack on any belief but an attempt to make this article more encyclopedic and increase it's quality per Wikipedia's standards. If you feel this is an affront or still do not understand the reasoning feel free to try and change the creation myth article's title or try editing a more judeo-christian centric creation narrative article of your own at Conservipedia. Nefariousski (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent)This subject comes up over and over again. From what I recall, it usually is resolved by turning to the Reliable Sources. Theologians, scholars, etc use myth the same way that we are using it here. Whether or not a word is offensive is entirely subjective, and is an unreliable marker. In a collaborative project like this one, there have to be ways to resolve these sort of disputes, and resorting to reliable sources is one of the best ways that wikipedia has to do it.

For those who do not like the use of the word myth and would prefer something like "account" or "sacred narrative", it's up to you to go out, spend the 8 to 50 years it takes to become a recognised scholar in the appropriate field, publish texts (essays, papers, books, etc) that can be reviewed and critiqued by the relevant community, and then have someone use your text as a Reliable Source here, have it be discussed, let the community arrive at a consensus that, yes, the appropriate community has shifted from using "myth" to using your prefered term, and voila, there's your change.Quietmarc (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hogwash. Readers are going to continue to openly rebel against this POV travesty being foisted by a few opinionated editors who are full of their own offensive POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please remain civil Til, and mind WP:AGF. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I cannot AGF when it is already perfectly clear that some editors have an interest in using wikipedia to attempt to discredit the scriptures of a living religion, which is hardly NPOV, and more like POV pushing. As if all people who try to live by these various scriptures of world faiths, are going to be persuaded by the say-so of these opinionated wikipedians that they believe in "myths". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User Nefariousski seems to be taking some things slightly out of context in quoting the Wiki style manual, which first says, "it ('myth') may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing." It also talks about referring to "Christian beliefs" and "Hindu myths" in a similar context. Nowhere in this article does that happen. As editors of this particular article, we are not responsible for what other articles say unless we are editing them, or come across something that talks about one religion's beliefs and another religion's myths. At such point we may feel we have a duty to correct it. Please keep in mind that Wiki policy is not deemed as dogma. We found that out when the policy on "Saint" honoraries came out and some editors of the various apostles' articles "consensus-ed" that they didn't want to change it. The ruling from Admin level, to my surprise, was that it did not have to be uniform─that matters of style were not dictated.

User Quietmarc's "8 to 50 years" digressive sarcasm is typical of the mentality being expressed by the "myth" proponents. With few exceptions, the editors so passionately pushing "myth" seem to understand consensus to mean "Do it my way. I really don't care who is offended by this characterization in the very first few words of the article. Don't give me any reasons. My mind is made up. I'll do whatever it takes to keep "myth" exactly where it is. I'm not even open to moving down lower in the article than in the very first sentence!" There is no room for consensus because that would mean, "Come, let's reason together. Let's negotiate." Many of the earlier comments on this page indicate this is a closed-minded slam dunk. Bringing up the Creation myth article as a reason is only the latest ploy. It has no direct bearing on this article. The very fact that WP:WTA#Myth_and_Legend acknowledges "'myth' may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing" is precisely the point. Afaprof01 (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Now now, lets not take anything out of context. The full sentence from WP:WTA#Myth and Legendstates "In less formal contexts, it may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing." the operative words being "In less formal contexts" which this article does not do. The example from WTA of "less formal contexts" is "For instance, avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean something that is commonly believed but untrue." None of which this article does. It simply references another article which very formally defines the term and the context in which it is used. If you don't like it then go try and get the creation myth article changed. Additionally you'll see that Creation Myth is a widely accepted term that has an actual definition[1][2][3][4][5] When I googled Define "Creation Narrative" there were no definitions or specific articles regarding the concept of "Creation Narrative" and a handful of the hits that came back on the first page specifically defined the term Creation Myth and used the words "Creation Narrative" in the discussion of the definition or encyclopedic article (not wiki) on Creation Myth. The burden of evidence is HUGE. We use creation myth because it is a real and accepted term to describe different belief system's versions of how the world was created.Nefariousski (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for being a bit sarcastic, but while I'm not a theologian myself, I've spent years in the company of many people from a variety of faiths who have been. My own mother is a minister. I can go to her bookshelf and pull any number of texts that use "myth" exactly as it's used in this article (and next time I visit her, I may do just that so that I can add something more substantial to the discussion). My "8 to 50 years" point is that experts use certain words for a reason, and they dedicate a considerable part of their lives to the study of their chosen subjects. To arbitrarily decide to disregard their work and effort just to avoid being offensive to those who haven't bothered to do the research strikes me as wrong and careless.

I think any collaborative project has to set some sort of standard for inclusion. I'm certain that there are publications where it's been decided that the technical jargon is either too dense or offensive for their readers, and so they make editorial decisions that reflect that. Here on wikipedia, though, we've chosen to rely on what the sources say. In this case, the sources use "myth", so we should (in my opinion) use "myth".Quietmarc (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Why can you not be honest with yourself enough to admit the truth - that theologians and sources actually do disagree on whether or not any given part of the Bible meets any of the definitions of "myth"? That is, instead of blithely ignoring or rejecting all of those sources that don't match the circular-reasoning litmus test of your POV? If you are going to appeal to "theologians" for your logic, you have be honest and concede all that those authors who disagree are theologians just as well as YOUR theologians - no side has a monopoly, nor has any "agreement" been enforced, and it's pure cynicism to pretend there is agreement or consensus among theological sources. When sources disagree significantly, NPOV policy calls on us to outline each of the sourced POVs in neutral language, not to side outside with one set of sources based on their POV and share their hostility for another set of sources. Where exactly is your logic in calling that "neutral"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that within the academic circles there will be disagreement, but at the end of the day certain sources are going to be given greater weight than others. You seem to be arguing something like the fallacy of the false middle, where if person A says one thing and person B says the other, then the truth must be in the middle. That is not necessarily true. We have a situation here where the majority of experts are using one term in a certain way, and we have several users who have provided several lines of evidence (google matches, reliable sources, etc) of this. NPOV policy does not over-ride Undue Weight. I have no doubt that there are lots of sources that use other terms, but we need to give those sources appropriate weight. We can't just throw in what every Scholar X says, we need to evaluate the sources in the context of the scholarly community as a whole.

As I've already said, I myself am not an expert. I'm intrigued enough by this discussion that I'm actually going to go out and look at sources, including (but certainly not limitted to) my mom's bookshelf. I'm prepared to be convinced differently, and if you have suggestions of places I can start, I'm all ears. I'm not cynical, I'm pragmatic: even if the community is deeply divided, we need to use a term, and we need to evaluate which of the available terms is the best. Right now, based on what I've seen in wiki and according to my interpretation of wiki policy, Myth is the best. If my assessment changes, you can be sure I'll add that to the discussion. Quietmarc (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

While you're at it, be sure to read everything carefully on User:Til Eulenspiegel/Religious narratives as sacred canon. Contrary to the way they were summarily and off-handedly characterized by Nefariousski, most of the prominent theologians quoted on that page are specifically talking about academic (not colloquial) usage of the term "myth" - and why they feel it is still inappropriate for any part of the Hebrew Scriptures, by any definition. It's a fallacy to pretend there is artificial agreement, where there is no agreement. And it would be more in line with policy to describe each of the positions fairly, without endorsing any one set of opinions over another, as is currently being done. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose beginning the article with a sentence that everyone agrees with. There an easy solution! Everyone agrees that Genesis is an ancient text/story/narrative. After that we can say that most scholars refer to this as one of many creations myths, or similar statement. ^rossnixon 01:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, Ross. Afaprof01 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this. It's an attempt to try and polarize the article. X is Y, but scholars say X is Z. No thanks. This article is talking about the creation myth found in Genesis, scholars and associated reliable sources agree, and as such this article reflects that in the interest of neutrality. Ben (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That suggestion is akin to putting (Most scholars refer to this as one of many religions) next to the word Christianity or (Most scholars refer to this as an element) next to the word Oxygen. The term creation myth isn't up for debate. It exists, is universally used (even in theological circles) and is the proper phrase for a supernatural or religious story or explanation about the beginning of life/humanity/earth etc... The point of Wikipedia isn't to pacify everyone who gets upset about something that offends their personal views.Nefariousski (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What could be up for reasonable discussion is WHERE the term goes. There is no rule, except in some people's dictates, that it absolutely positively must go early in the very first sentence. No one has explained that. Afaprof01 (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

While I think it's a little counter-intuitive to move the definition / categorization of a topic in the introduction I don't see any problem with moving it as long as it doesn't make the article more confusing. Why not put a few sentences regarding what the formal definition of creation myth so that we clear up all possible misinterp / contextual issues of using the phrase right from the start so that those of us who for some reason are dogmatically opposed to using the word are pacified that we're not using "myth" in the informal sense and the rest of us get to maintain the integrity of the link / formal meaning of the term in the article? I'd personally rather clarify the confusion rather than hide it further down the article or obfuscate it by changing the formal term creation myth into a made up term.Nefariousski (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well this is NEVER going to end just because you keep telling it to end, so long as a pushy minority of POV editors purposefully choose to go the offensive route. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Reality isn't predicated on whether you are offended or not. Creation myth is an actual defined term that exists outside of this article. Here's the top results from a google search on Define "Creation Myth"[6][7][8][9][10]

If the word "Dinosaurs" offends somebodies religion they can't change any article that references them to "Jesus Horses" because that is not the academic term. The WP:Google test supports this unquestionably (feel free to check for yourself or read my above comments). The defined term "Creation Narrative" doesn't exist in academia, as a theological concept or in any appreciable sources that I was able to find nor does it have an article to reference nor does it serve the purpose of making the bible's account sounding more true since Narratives are often defined as possibly being fictional or unverifiable, similar to storytelling. 20:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

From my view to take a neutral point that creation cannot be fully proved or disproved as a myth, I think the word myth shoud be replaced with belief as a compromise. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFC Request for comments

WP:WTA#Myth_and_Legend says that "'myth' may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing"

As may be seen in both "Lede" and "First sentence" subsections above, there is considerable controversy among this article's editors about the insistence on having the word "myth" in the very first sentence of this article.

• Proponent arguments, where present, are largely based on the definition of a Creation myth and their claim that changing "myth" to something like "narrative" or "account" will do disservice to the integrity of the article.
• Opponents argue are that characterizing the Book of Genesis creation accounts in chapters 1 and 2 as a "myth" is an affront to both Judaism and Christianity in that it is part of their Bible which they consider sacred.

Various compromises have been suggested but never accepted through expression of consensus. One of those was to create a footnote to either "narrative" or "account," explaining the formal academic understanding of a Creation myth.

The matter is getting pretty ugly and we need your comment assistance─quickly, please. Thank you. Afaprof01 (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is not considerable controversy. In the previous section there is plenty of support and a clear rationale for the use of creation myth in terms of policy, guidelines (the first sentence makes it clear we're talking about a religious topic) and reliable sources, and then there are a few editors who just don't like the term. Starting an RFC because you don't like Wikipedia's polices and relevant reliable sources is nothing short of woeful. Ben (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Woeful indeed. The case for using creation myth is very clear and supported by precedent, academic and technical. Other very long standing wikipedia articles (the creation myth article itself), a google test, a review of sources (encyclopedic, academic and theological) while the case against it is no more than "those words offend me". WP:WTA#Myth and Legend states "In less formal contexts, it may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing." the operative words being "In less formal contexts" which this article does not do. The example from WTA of "less formal contexts" is "For instance, avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean something that is commonly believed but untrue." None of which this article does. It simply references another article which very formally defines the term and the context in which it is used. Additionally you'll see that Creation Myth is a widely accepted term that has an actual definition[11][12][13][14][15]. When one googles Define "Creation Narrative" there were no definitions or specific articles regarding the concept of "Creation Narrative" and a handful of the hits that came back on the first page specifically defined the term Creation Myth and used the words "Creation Narrative" in the discussion of the definition or encyclopedic article (not wiki) on Creation Myth. The precident and amount of support for using creation myth is HUGE. We use creation myth because it is the real and academically accepted term to describe different belief system's versions of how the world was created. Nefariousski (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with using "creation myth" in the first sentence, as per the way these things are normally done here on Wikipedia. Dayewalker (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Some days ago I made this edit in an attempt to compromise between the two camps and to strike a balance per WP:JARGON. For what its worth, I don't think that the fact that some people misunderstand or even find certain technical terms offensive is any sort of argument against using those words, as long as our usage is in line with the correct academic usage of such words. Gabbe (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Changing a formal, technical term to a made up term to placate those whom are offended by the formal and correct term isn't the right way to go. I think the best way to keep the integrity of the intro and to calm those who dislike it would be to add a sentance or two explaining exactly what is the formal meaning of creation myth and to clarify context / intent of using the proper term. I'd like to also note that this is the same compromise that was agreed upon when the actual creation myth article was created and that article has been fairly stable for quite some time now.Nefariousski (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the arguments above that there is no due cause to remove the term "creation myth", however its replacement with the word "narrative" wouldn't be inaccurate. What I strongly disagree with however would be the replacement originally suggested by PiCo in which it would be described as a "sacred narrative". This would clearly be an inclusion of POV. Some people think the story is sacred and others do not. Wikipedia shouldn't advocate particular people's opinions.Chhe (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• WP:RNPOV really leaves no room to replace the term Myth in this article. If you want to challenge that policy, fine, but do it there. WP:POV is mandatory for all articles in its entirety. There will be no small 'revolution' here to serve as a beachhead. This has come up 100,000,000 times at Talk:Creation myth, and as you'll notice, that page is still exactly where it's always been. It would appear that at this point all possible arguments have been exhausted and are beginning to loop back on themselves (though they all boil down to "throw the believers a bone, won't it be nice?"). --King Öomie 21:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL I can just picture King George III shrilly shrieking "There vill BE no small 'revolution' here...!" Uh, if something is manifestly and grossly unjust, and attitudes like yours are what are thrust in our faces, then of course many people who see this will rebel - it's called human nature. (Though you might have known something about that) When will you wake up and notice that self-described "Atheist" editors haven't accomplished anything, or persuaded anyone of their correctness, by getting their POV enshrined as "NPOV" on wikipedia; it's all been in vain - five years later, the issue is still just as strong as it was five years ago, as it probably will be five years from now, too. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, except no. This is not the proper place to discuss changing WP:NPOV to fit your need for religious vindication. WT:NPOV is. But feel free to compare me to more unsavory historical figures, Hitler. You ARE aware you're comparing the oppressed masses under a tyrant to volunteers on a privately-owned web site, right? --King Öomie 22:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and also. The tendency for logical arguments to... bounce off the heads of the religiously-motivated isn't a failing of the atheists. --King Öomie 22:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's true that I do fail to see any logic in your arguments. If NPOV policy across wikipedia is that we do not endorse an offensive POV, but rather describe and attribute all POVs neutrally, how is it "logical" for the controversial subject of Genesis to be a magic exception to that? All I have really seen are illogical appeals to emotion from editors who describe themselves as atheist, but that are becoming difficult for many other editors to follow who don't share your perspective. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're being serious about Genesis being an exception to the rule, then you're letting your personal bias cloud your judgement. You don't care about WP:RNPOV. You're offended, goddamnit, and something must be done about it.

The comparison to removing 'SWP' or 'PBUH' or whatever it was from instances of Muhammad in islamic articles is QUITE apt, despite your assertion (at least, I think that was you). Muslims find it EXTREMELY disrespectful to lay his name bare like that, without the honorific. Every week or so someone cries out on Talk:Muhammad/Images, demanding, for the sake of decency, that the images be removed. "What will it hurt?" they ask. "Please! You offend so many, and for what?" they plead. "You will not be safe until they're gone", they threaten (and I'm not joking). Pretty much your arguments (except the death threat). Creation Myth is the accepted, scholarly term, and thus it will be used. That's exactly how simple it is. --King Öomie 22:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Creation Myth is a term accepted by SOME scholars. Many others have specifically rejected its application to Genesis. There has been no grand unanimity-imposing council, where all scholars had to accept this, and all those who have rejected it were branded as "heretics". So explain to me one more time please, how exactly is it "logical" to pretend these scholars don't exist, and for us to go out of our way to use an inflammatory term, when a more neutral one would convey the same ostensible meaning? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

They are a tiny minority, and I don't really care what the think. In the same way that I don't care about the .0001% of scientists to advocate biblical literalism. --King Öomie 22:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I care more about what a published RS by a prominent theologian thinks, than I care about what you think - after all, you are just a wikipedia editor. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. I've given sources above. And not just sources that use the term, they're a dime a dozen. I have provided a source that explicitly tells us that the term is mainstream. The problem here is that you care more about what you think than what reliable sources say. You accuse others of POV pushing, but it has become blatantly obvious that it's you that is POV pushing. Ben (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And I've provided prominent theologians who explicitly disagree with your sources. The problem is that you are asserting some sort of magic priority for your sources and your school of thought, and refusing to acknowledge that other significant schools of thought even exist. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"4 out of 5 dentists agree that sugar-free gum is the way to go" now translates to "There is NO consensus that sugar-free gum doesn't infringe on the human rights of hypoglycemic individuals, so that's the view we should present" --King Öomie 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would we use the word myth when the word story is much more used and less contentious? Most theologians use 'creation story' when writing for a non-technical audience (as we are). Myth is explicitly listed as a word to avoid. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Because "Creation Story" also fails the Google Test which tells me that it is in fact much LESS often used than Creation Myth as a stand alone term. I found zero hits on the formal definition of the term "Creation Story" not to mention an decidedly Judeo-Christian slant on all the articles that did pop up in the first few pages while Creation Myth Returned a solid dozen definitions in the first few pages, academic articles, and no faith skewing since it is a faith neutral term. Nefariousski (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

DJ, I would suggest reading the above thread and Talk:Creation myth. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

When I tried Google "creation myth" got 303,000 hits and "creation story" 391,000, including some Hindu hits on the first page. Which Google were you trying? The Google test is not about definitions, it's about usage. And what precisely is your objection to a 'Judeo-Christian slant' when talking about Genesis? DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

DJ, We're talking about a formal term, not common usage. I googled Define "Creation Myth" in my test to see how often it is used as the formal term for what we're talking about here. If you do the same test against any other variant (Narrative, Story etc...) you'll find that none of them are, as a term considered the formal definition of a religious or supernatural account of how it all began. Not to mention if you type "Creation Myth" in google search and don't hit anything the drop down that shows the most popular searches tries to finish the term out with the following: Stories, Ideas, Greek, Similarities, of Buddhism, Definition, Of Egypt, of Hinduism, Lesson Plan. If you do the same test with "Creation Story" you get: Genesis, for kids, coloring pages, of hinduism, activities, bible, in genesis, for preschoolers, of buddhism, pictures. Which is decidely more slanted towards Judeo-Christian accounts.

Now let's execute both searches. Creation Myth comes up with the following article on world creation myths, A listing of world creation myths, another, Aztec Creation Myth, an analysis of various creation myths, Egyptian Creation Myths etc... you get the picture. Do the same with "Creation Story" and the first link The summary of the bible Story of Creation, 4 more christian websites, an article titled Hebrew/Christian Creation Myth etc... Looking at "related Searches" we find, "Creation Story old testament", "Creation Myth story", "Creation Bible Story", "Genesis Creation Story", "Adam and Eve Creation Story"

My objective to Judeo Christian slant is seen in WP:WTA#Myth and Legend which specifically states that we should avoid calling one faiths account a Myth and another's a Narrrative or a story or any other term. Additionally it's pretty clear that as a stand alone term Creation Myth actually exists and means something and has strong precedence here on Wiki and everywhere else while "Creation Narrative" and "Creation Story" alone and without context mean nothing as stand alone terms (hence their lack of any definitions as stand alone terms). Not to mention WP:NPOV and WP:RNPOV dictate that we don't slant any articles towards any particular belief regardless of their content. I know it's hard for some editors to be objective when you have faith in a belief but that's what's required in this case. Nefariousski (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked the results of '"creation story" and about 1 in 10 were kids sites. Even if we exclude them, that still means there are more hits for creation story than creation myth. I don't see why finding more definitions makes a difference - maybe creation myth is a term that needs defining (because it's technical) and creation story doesn't.

I agree with your point about equal treatment for faiths, but that doesn't mean we should violate policy equally for all faiths. Myth is still a term to be avoided, according to policy, and I see no evidence that pairing it with another word somehow makes it less so. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please add WP:NPOV to the above list of recommended reading. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course the account of creation in Genesis 1 is a "myth" in a technical sense. And Roman Catholicism is a "cult" in a technical sense too. But outside of technical discussions, using terms like "myth" and "cult" convey emotionally charged and somewhat misleading ideas to lay audiences. Why not simply use the phrase "creation story" in the lead and then include a fuller discussion of the appropriateness of the word "myth" in the body? "Story" is fully capable of indicating a non-literal narrative, but it lacks the connotation of "bull-crap" that "myth" often carries in the popular imagination. Eugeneacurry (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

My mum used to yell at me if I told "stories" and so I disagree with your assessment of the connotation of the words. Theory has negative connotations too, you know, but I don't see science articles worrying about this. In the technical sense, to use your words, theory is correct. Furthermore, your suggestion seems to fall foul of policy (WP:RNPOV). Cheers, Ben (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked WP:RNPOV, you seem to be right.Eugeneacurry (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Debate Déjà vu

This is in essence a Déjà vu and a repeat/replay of the debate about the use of the word "myth" within various Wikipedia articles, which has taken place elsewhere, and usually takes place around Easter every year on the Good Friday or Crucifixion of Jesus pages. Here is a link: Talk:Good_Friday#RfC_on_crucifixion_as_part_of_Christian_mythology_in_Good_Friday_article

There is clear precedent that the words "myth" and "mythology" are NOT to be used within religious articles in Wikipedia for that would render an opinion about the religion, making it POV. There is absolutely no point in pitting non-believing scientists against believing priests on this talk page for the debate will never end. Those interested in debates of that type should select a suitable bar/pub and continue the discussions there: Wikipedia is no place for it. The only way is to just say that: Book A on topic B says C. This debate is a waste of time and must end based on the precedents in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no such precedent, and if there was on a single article talk page it would be in violation of our NPOV policy. Ben (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

THe problem at hand is "myth" vs the proper noun "Creation Myth". They don't mean the same thing. Creation Myth does not equal myth they have two very different definitions. Creation Myth is a widely accepted formal term that does not carry any of the negative connotations in the definition of "myth". Those against using Creation Myth base their arguements solely on appeals to sensitivity around the definition of "myth". This is as silly as saying the word assassinate is offensive because it contains the word "ass" twice. The fact that there is any debate at all on using the widely accepted and formal term Creation Myth in favor of replacing it with a non formal combination of words that as a distinct term mean absolutely nothing and have no unique definition in the name of preventing offence blows my mind. The concensus out in the real world among scholars and academia regarding the use of Creation Myth is so clear as to be undebateable. Nefariousski (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You can scream that it's "undebateable" til you're blue in the face, but it fails to account for all of the debate... not just here, but in the sources... not just now, but ongoing for centuries and unlikely to be resolved by mere chutzpah or bald assertion.. "Undebateable" my aunt fanny. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no debate in the sources. All of your sources criticize the use of the word "myth" which is distinctly different from a Creation Myth You can't pick apart the parts of a term and define them independently. The Electoral College is not an institute of higher learning because it contains the word college. Words have meaning and context, all of your arguements and "sources" are for the wrong context and essentially the wrong word. Creation Myth as a proper noun has to be considered as if it was one word with a unique meaning that is destroyed if either of it's component words are changed. Definitions about America or States are wildly different than the definition of United States of America. Nefariousski (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Arguments with Til are likely to go in circles, so I'd save your keyboard. We have presented sources and cited policy in favour of the term creation myth, and the article is locked for three days. I suggest we stop taking baited comments like Til's and just address any relevant arguments, assuming they appear. If nothing relevant has been presented in three days then I think it's safe to assume nothing will, and we can archive this. Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather than just making this an either/or debate

Rather than just making this an either/or debate, at this point, a third way should be looked at. Also note that Wikipedia:Explain jargon says, as its lead, "Words and phrases used as jargon by any profession or group should usually be avoided or explained." Consider the likes of this this:

“ Creation according to Genesis refers to the first two chapters of the Bible's Book of Genesis and the creation narrative (colloquially) or creation myth (formal term) found there in. ”

^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notes

I'm not against compromise and in fact I like your suggestion for the most part. I'd prefer to just add an explanation of the exact definition and context of the term Creation Myth and not muddy the waters with a secondary term. WP:WTA#Myth and Legend is pretty clear that we shouldn't call one faith's account a Creation Myth whilst giving another faith's account a term to use like "Creation Narrative" not to mention the slippery slope towards wp:RNPOV when concessions seem to be given to one faith over others. The battle over the term Creation Myth has already been extensively fought on the Creation Myth page. I don't understand why we can't just take their solution (A detailed definition of Creation Myth so it's not confused with the informal use of the word "myth") and leave it at that. If it's good enough for the main page of Creation Myths there's no reason it's not good enough for one of the many faith specific pages regarding Creation Myth. Nefariousski (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to a footnote (though I dislike them being used this way), but I am opposed to Wikipedia trying to introduce new terminology and proscribe usage of it in articles. Cheers, Ben (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• To some people Creation according to Genesis is a specific page related to the "main" page Creation myth, but to other people it is a specific page related to the "main" page of Bible, or Genesis, etc. Neither view is the one "right" view. What is more, readers of the "Creation myth" page are all the more likly to know already (or re-learn) this formal jargon of comparative religon, etc.
• A "detailed definition" of Creation myth unmuddies only if it is read (and not too long to overwelm the sentence it is in). "Creation narrative" is a perfectly clear gloss (short definition) that can be supplemented with detail in either a note or in the next sentence.
• Since the term "Creation myth" will not be understood in the formal meaning by many people (and be seen as POV by them, even if it is not according to the formal meaning), I would advocate the same solution for articles on any faith's account of Creation; there is not any unfair advovation of a faith or specific faiths over others. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 06:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That is silly. We can't avoid terms like that. The term theory has a similar problem, yet is unquestioningly used in scientific articles regardless. Now, if you're worried about people seeing us as non-neutral since we use the term myth, what about the other side of the coin? People who see us as avoiding the term? Are they immune from detecting neutrality in the same way? In cases like this, we must fall back on reliable sources. In this case, myth has been demonstrated to be mainstream term, and avoiding it falls foul of WP:NPOV, in particular, WP:RNPOV. Attach a footnote if you think it really will help (though I would argue clicking a more prominent wikilink creation myth would be easier for the reader, and this use may fall foul of our "no disclaimer" policies). Cheers, Ben (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This would not avoid the term "Creation myth."

This would not introduce new terminology, as "creation narrative" is a description. So it is also not ment be used over-and-over to replace of "Creation myth" throughout the article. Likewise would also work to use a other descriptions, such as "account of Creation."

Creation myth has not been demonstrated to be mainstream term. It may be a mainstream term among religious scholars, but it is still the jargon thereof, and not a mainstream term/meaning for Wikipedia readers. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 09:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Children's books, general references, etc, use the term without issue. It is a mainstream term. Just like the term theory. Ben (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So, on the last point, rather than defer to a community of experts on a topic that we're writing an article about in an encyclopaedia, we should adopt some amorphous "mainstream" terminology instead? That doesn't seem particularly clever. When I consult a reference work to learn something, I expect it to conform to the relevant conventions for that topic. If there are jargon issues that need dealing with, I'm happy to follow footnotes (or even hyperlinks to articles that explain the jargon), but I'd be nonplussed if different terminology was used instead. Especially if said terminology was not supported by hyperlinked articles in the same encyclopaedia. Among other things, using "myth" instead of "narrative" (which I, personally, interpret as "subjective quasi-fiction") provides an excellent learning opportunity for readers on the formal use of language by scholars. To do otherwise is akin to (shudder) "political correctness gone mad". --PLUMBAGO 10:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Underhanded tactics

RfC isn't a numbers game, Afaprof01. Calling in a bunch of buddies who offer the same easily refutable arguments only makes it look like POV pushing. Cheers, Ben (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh look, they even have a term for it: Wikipedia:CANVASS#Votestacking. Ben (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is NOT canvassing, unless he tells people which way to vote. He did not say anything to that effect, hence no canvassing has taken place. History2007 (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been told which way to vote and I think it was quite thoughtful to get my opinion on the debate. As it happens I think on balance that "myth" or "creation myth" is ok and the right term to use. I think the mistake is to assume that "myth" is a bad thing - implying it's a fairytale or something. Instead we need to get into the head of those in civilisations long gone who understood the role of myth simply as a way to try and explain or deepen our understanding of an underlying truth or an unfathomable mystery. In this case the mystery of where we came from as humans. Myth can therefore be a beautiful thing if considered in the right way. Empiricism is important but trying to explain every part of what we are as human beings through empiricism alone can leave us unsatisfied. Myth therefore is an attempt to make us make sense or order out of what can seem to be pure disorder or randomness. It would be a mistake to see the creation of the world in 7 days as true. It isn't - it can't ever be true - we are too rational for that. But it's someone's attempt to demonstrate that God was in some way behind this strange event called creation; beyond human comprehension. The greek and roman myths serve a similar purpose. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, Ithink what each of us believes is beside the point. This article should summarize the contents of the book, not pass judgment on it. History2007 (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't accuse Afaprof01 of telling people how to vote, I accused him of "an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." --Wikipedia:CANVASS#Votestacking Cheers, Ben (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that there was no canvassing, as the article there states. History2007 (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, which article says that? The text Ben quoted is directly from WP:CANVASS. You don't have to tell someone "Oh, and vote this way" for it to be canvassing. He went out and tapped the shoulders of people who'd argued here and elsewhere for his side of the argument, and no one else. That's canvassing. --King Öomie 13:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, anyone can quote, e.g. the next paragraph says: Posting a friendly notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis. And I had participated in similar debates on Good Friday. So it was not canvassing in my case in any case. As was fo rseverla other people who had participated in similar debates. History2007 (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

He only alerted people who'd previously debated AGAINST including the term "creation myth". I don't know how I can be more clear. He did not alert anyone who'd debated FOR using it. This is the definition of vote stacking. --King Öomie 18:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No he didn't, he didn't alert me! I feel quite hurt. PiCo (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Only alerted ≠ alerted all. Ben (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he did alert me, only it wasn't by posting on my talk page – he sent me a wik-email.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 23:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, Afaprof01 did notice me. However, King Öomie is wrong in stating "He only alerted people who'd previously debated AGAINST including the term 'creation myth'" and "He went out and tapped the shoulders of people who'd argued here and elsewhere for his side of the argument, and no one else." I have never taken a position on any talk page or RFC on this issue, or any issue related to Genesis or Creation Myths. Afaprof01 would have little to go on to divine what my position would be. I suspect he noticed me because I have edited several articles about Christian topics. This seems entirely appropriate. I would encourage King Öomie to verify the facts before making such attacks in the future and to consider WP:SORRY. Novaseminary (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Two cents

I have contributed to several of the Creationism articles, and to this specific article over the last couple of years. Here are my two cents. I am not a young earth creationist, I accept that the Earth is 5 billion years old. Nevertheless I object to the unqualified use of the phrase "creation myth". This is a religious text that is regarded as a divine scripture by about 30% of the Earth's population. As such it does not fit into the same category as Enuma Elish and other dead pieces of literature. I do not see why it cannot be called a creation account or creation story. These are neutral terms that can be interpreted as implying fact or fiction by those who wish. The insistence of calling it a "creation myth" seems to me to be a cynical attempt to imply that the story is fiction. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It need not be unqualified. Suggestions have been made above that a footnote is added so that the use of the term is clear. Furthermore, we already hyperlink to creation myth, so any inquisitive reader can read up on the use of language here (and find out about all of the other, mutually exclusive creation myths that exist). Regarding your alternative suggestions, "account" implies something written by a witness (which even the YECs don't claim; or do they?), while "story" clearly implies fiction to me. Faced with this, and the fact that we're aiming to capture something of a scholarly subject here, we should defer to mainstream expert terminology. That doesn't mean, of course, that we can't qualify with footnotes and hyperlinks to other articles that illuminate things further. Anyway, that's my two cents (which I seem to have spent many times over on this particular topic). --PLUMBAGO 10:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what each of us believes is beside the point. This article should summarize the contents of the book, not pass judgment on it. History2007 (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Err, isn't describing it as a "story" passing judgement on it? You might think not, but I do (and vice versa, of course). Hence why I suggested just using default academic language instead of importing "mainstream" (whatever that is) language. I'm well aware that our views (yes, both of us) are beside the point. --PLUMBAGO 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Let us just summarize the book without passing any judgment on it. Just say Book X says Y. As to whether Y is correct or not, we shall not judge. History2007 (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but you persist in interpreting the use of "myth" as passing a very particular judgement when, as is clear from its academic definition, it is not. This use is merely describing the nature of the contents of a particular book, and is distinguishing this (yes, in a dry, academic way) from fiction, biography, etc. Said contents should be described as something, and since this is meant to be an encyclopaedia, I suggest that the scholarly "creation myth" fits the bill (not least because of our need to conform to WP:RS). Among other things, I say this because I do not anticipate any description (short of "the Truth") being acceptable to some readers. Anyway, it looks like agreeing to disagree is how this is going to wind up. --PLUMBAGO 13:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The public does not interpret it as an academic definition, but mostly views it as a term which means "untrue". Hence it is a label, assigned by one group. Best solution: No label, no judgment. History2007 (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's irrelevant even with citations. Policy is clear, we go with the academic term. If you disagree with that policy, argue against it THERE. Violating it here is just that- a violation of policy (and possibly WP:POINT). --King Öomie 14:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Policy does not say that at all, clearly or otherwise. In fact it says the opposite, requiring the lede to be written in non-technical language and discouraging the use of the word myth in cases where its meaning might be taken to be the informal one. Story, account and narrative are all much better terms here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RNPOV, the policy, trumps MOS:INTRO, the style guideline. The one that specifically points out that it will have exceptions. WP:NPOV is not optional. --King Öomie 13:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how "Creation according to Genesis is the account of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman as found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible." violates NPOV. --agr (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. 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." -WP:RNPOV The bolded section represents the reason this argument is taking place ("Our religious sensibilities are offended, think of the children"), and its refutation. --King Öomie 15:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying the term "creation myth" should be excluded from the article. However nothing in the NPOV policy you quote says technical terms must be used in the first sentence of an article, while the LEDE guideline says they shouldn't. And as I've pointed out previously, there is scholarly debate over whether Genesis contains one creation myth or two, so the current version is inaccurate as well. --agr (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

People are saying that, and those that do are rightly referred to the NPOV policy. I disagree with your assessment of creation myth as a technical term. I think it's fine for this encyclopedia - at about the same level as the term theory, for instance. That the term is so fundamental and descriptive of this article is why I think we should use it straight up. That is, if I stumble across an article about a creation myth, I simply want to know that in the first sentence. In general, if I stumble across an article Y that is a representative of X, I want to know that straight away. Is this article about a book? A mathematician? etc. As far as the debate you're alluding to, you realise the version you quoted suffers from the same problem, right? Ben (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right that some editor does want the term "creation myth" excluded entirely, but my understanding is that the current argument is about the introductory sentence. I poked around the last 500 versions of the article and haven't found one where the term "creation myth" did not occur somewhere. Perhaps a good example is this version [16], which is the last before the lede was changed to its current form. It says "The Genesis creation story is comparable with other Near Eastern creation myths." It's also in an info box and the see also section. I would support mentioning the term in the intro, perhaps after the textual summary, say, "Scholars debate whether the story consist of one creation myth or two." "Theory" has both a technical and non-technical meaning and this can cause problems in a lede. Note that our article evolution does not use the word "theory" until the fourth paragraph of the into and then treats it extremely gingerly. Finally, I would assert: {people who know what a creation myth is} ∩ {people who don't know Genesis contains a creation myth} = Ø. What does "the account of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman as found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible" fail to convey? --agr (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The 'current' argument morphed into the lede discussion, yes, after individuals realized they weren't getting the phrase removed wholesale (though some still fail to grasp this). --King Öomie 17:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I just looked over the discussion page and I don't see that. Maybe it's in the archives somewhere. Perhaps this is a place where we can move forward. Can we at least all agree that the issue now is what the first sentence should say?--agr (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to change the wording from what it is now. The meaning of "Creation Myth" is self-evident, and per WP:RNPOV, the formal meaning is used. Changing it to something more... sympathetic would be nothing less than pandering. Confused or not, every single person who visits this page and sees "creation myth" knows what it means. (And no, that meaning is not "ATHEIST CRUSADE, RALLY THE TROOPS"). --King Öomie 17:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to add, your evolution example is not a good one since that article is not about a theory. It's why I chose the general relativity article as an example a few times - it's about a theory and it's an FA. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Another proposal

Let's be honest, I find the use of footnotes unwieldy. Let's not forsake simplicity and clarity. How about replacing the opening sentence with this (or some variation):

Creation according to Genesis refers to the text found in the opening two chapters of the book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible. This text is regarded as a creation myth by scholars, and as a religious account of creation by Christians and Jews.

or alternatively

Creation according to Genesis refers to the text found in the opening two chapters of the book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible. This text is regarded as a creation myth by scholars, and has religious significance for Christianity and Judaism.

Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm,

General relativity refers to a culmination of ideas by Albert Einstein. The ideas are considered a scientific theory by scholars, and has scientific significance for people who like to debunk works of science fiction (damn you Phil Plait, damn you!!).

Yeah, I dunno, I think I prefer the current version. Look everyone, we're talking about a creation myth. This fact is indisputable and transcends the scholars (hello polarisation). The creation myth article is highly relevant and worth reading (and improving if you can) given that this article is a representative of that topic. Ben (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To make this a little more explicit, Wikipedia describes what things are according to WP:WEIGHT (another subset of WP:NPOV). As an example, we have general relativity. Another is the evolution article, which does not polarise itself by saying scholars think evolution is blah, it simply explains what evolution is per reliable sources. Nothing less can be expected from this article, and the sensibilities of a few editors do not make the slightest difference to that. Ben (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of this new proposal to remove the suggestion that says that peoples beliefs are wrong by calling it a definate myth. I personally would have been fine with the replacement of the word myth with belief. But ayway I personally will willingly accept this proposal. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Logical analysis

For the scientifically oriented, here is a logical analysis. We have several possible predicates as follows:

• Predicate P: Book X includes statement Y.
• Predicate Q: Statement (i.e. predicate) Y is provable.
• Predicate R: Statement (i.e. predicate) Y is semantically true.

The last predicate "R" (whether true or false) begins to step out into Model theory and is in effect a statement in the metalanguage:

In order to remain "neutral" Wikipedia articles should report on predicate P, but avoid the assignment of a truth value to predicate R.

There can, of course, be unending and cyclic debate about the truth of R, but that does not affect predicate P. Hence an article that "reports on what Book X says" is distinct from an article that reports on the debates about the truth of a specific statement within the book, based on some model of reality. The moment a specific model of reality is selected, neutrality regarding predicate P is challenged. Of course the debate article can be referenced with a link, but the link must remain separate from the report on predicate P itself.

Several examples exist in Wikipedia, e.g. Historical Jesus, Historicity of Jesus, Jesus and history, etc. that focus on historicity and involve reports of debates. However, the articles on Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Matthew, etc. do not include long debates, but aim to "summarize what the books said". This article must follow the same principle and avoid the assignment of a semantic truth value to predicate R. It must simply include predicate P with a link to another article where debates on predicate R are reported. History2007 (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, maybe you can help me out. The folks over at general relativity insist on using the term geometric theory in the introductory sentence. Can you give them the 'ole model theory 1, 2, and get them to change the introductory sentence to something along the lines of: Physics for Dummies includes the statement "General relativity is a geometric theory"? Thanks mate. Cheers, Ben (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a professional model theorist who happened to come along here because of the RfC, and I am astonished to see my subject mentioned here in such a ludicrous, far-fetched way, as in an attempt to give authority to a weak argument. Here is my analysis of the situation:

• "Myth" has various meanings, including a technical one that fits here, and an informal one that implies falsity.
• As far as consensus in the relevant academic communities for the factual claims made in Genesis is concerned, there is no doubt that this consensus says that practically all the claims made in genesis are false. (In fact, I learned about Genesis as a creation myth and part of a more general oriental tradition in religious education. So far as I know there is even a consensus among German theologians that it must not be read literally.)
• There is a Wikipedia-wide consensus not to stress the scientific side in articles about religious topic.
• Therefore: "Myth" is correct here in both senses mentioned above, but only the first sense is appropriate in this article. Per WP:WTA#Myth and legend we need to contextualise the word. While doing so, we must take care not to imply an actual distancing from the second meaning, i.e. the contextualising must be done subtly.
• "Creation myth" is a more precise technical term than "myth" and fits perfectly. In fact Genesis is one of the most important examples of a creation myth. The second, inappropriate (in the present context) connotation of "myth" is practically absent in "creation myth".
• Nobody has suggested a better solution than simply saying Genesis is a creation myth. Making up new terms or using little used ones is not acceptable. If these terms are used only for Genesis, as seems to be the case, then that demonstrates the underlying POV conflict.

Perhaps it's worth mentioning that this kind of careful analysis and weighing of accuracy against possible offence is already much more than what the Muslims get. The article Muhammad is full of merely decorative pictures of Muhammad (I just counted six). While one or two of them might be reasonable to prove the fact that through much of history Muslims had no problem with depicting Muhammad, half a dozen is simply not appropriate given the amount of offence it causes nowadays. Hans Adler 10:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A professional model theorist? What a pleasant surprise - a topic close to my own heart. A pleasure to meet you Hans, and Guten Tag. It is indeed refreshing to come across a model theorist in a world so dominated by the deep thoughts of supermodels on what to wear tomorrow. And I agree with your point that Genesis is getting an unfair treatment here, e.g. see:

• Book of Mormon
• Shiva
• Gautama Buddha
• Taoism
• Confucianism
• And many others...

Which one of these has "myth" in the lead? None. However, I still maintain that the use of that word will be rendering a judgment on the content, not describing them. History2007 (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your list of examples is as silly as the completely unwarranted reference to "supermodels". (My subject and its name are of course older than this silly craze.) This is the article about "creation according to Genesis". If you find "creation myth" in the lead of Jesus, Moses, Christianity, Catholicism, etc., then just remove them. A proper list would have had articles such as Enûma Eliš, or the relevant section of Mithraic Mysteries. Hans Adler 13:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I had always thought that was a funny joke - I studied model theory for long too... But The lead to the Gospel of John does not call the Raising of Lazarus a "myth" so this article should not either. History2007 (talk)

• "I studied model theory for long too" – I don't believe you, but that's irrelevant.
• "But The lead to the Gospel of John does not call the Raising of Lazarus a "myth" so this article should not either." – See WP:OTHERSTUFF for general observations about the quality of this kind of argument. And I have been quite careful to explain the difference between "myth" and "creation myth" so far as nuances are concerned. It's rude to ignore that, see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Hans Adler 13:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually Ben, I had seen the general relativity page and it is exactly right. It discusses the Theory of general relativity, not the contents of a specific book. Please read the analysis above again very carefully, then it may become clear to you. And they use the word model in the context of physical model, not a logical model - that would involve an axiomatic definition, e.g. see [17]. Hence the word geometric model is exactly right there, and indeed, indeed, indeed, just today a new dimension opened up with the entropy force. Please read today's (Jan 20, 2010) issue of New Scientist [18] and profit thereby. Now that we are talking science, as another example, consider Entropic Spacetime Theory which is about a book just as this article is about a book. The article does not call Entropic Spacetime Theory a "myth" but just states what the book said. This article should just say what the Bible said, not pass judgment on it. So I think you addressed my argument by stating that you can not understand it. Anyway, it is interesting that so many of the people who critisize creation on scientific grounds can hardly follow the basic elements of modern science.... Oh well..... History2007 (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Could it be that you have missed Ben's point completely? Many creationists like to attack the theory of evolution as "just a theory" making use of the non-technical sense of the word. Nevertheless scientists still use the word in its technical sense, and so do we. I am pretty sure Ben was alluding to this. Hans Adler 12:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and "people who critisize creation on scientific grounds" sounds as if you can't tell the difference between science and religion. I guess this is part of the problem here: Some people are trying to push the long discredited idea that Genesis is an accurate historical account. Hans Adler 13:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I am pushing the idea that no idea should be pushed, for or against. History2007 (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

To me it looks more as if, not content with the fact that science doesn't get undue weight in this religion article, you try to censor anything that can be interpreted as an allusion to scientific facts that don't fit biblical literalism. Hans Adler 13:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are coming to the heart of the issue. Do religious articles in general include scientific analysis? If so, why not the one on Shiva or the Raising of Lazarus? History2007 (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not about including scientific analysis, although that does in fact become relevant once crazy people start claiming that their holy book is more reliable than scientific research. This is about whether the words in this article may be censored and optimised so as to fit a creationist viewpoint. They may not. Hans Adler 13:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly who claimed that this book is reliable? This article must summarize the book, not judge it. Hello? Is that clear? History2007 (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not OK to just summarise the contents. There is also secondary literature about the book, mostly by theologians, and in a complete article that needs to appear as well. That's where we get precise and concise summaries of the content from, such as "creation myth". The judging happens in your mind; apparently you are over-sensitive to any reference to the discord between the nice story told in this book and physical reality. Hans Adler 13:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant one model of physical reality. Hence a POV. History2007 (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. So far as Wikipedia is concerned, the overwhelming consensus of the relevant academic community, where it exists, is simply true. Do you see any particular efforts at Elvis Presley to use neutral language, so as to not create a prejudice concerning the question whether he is really dead? I don't. On the other hand, no undue weight is put on the fact that he is dead. The corresponding fringe theory for this article is treated following the same principles. Hans Adler 18:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is not about science. Hence I do not agree. As for no undue weight is put on the fact that Elvis is dead please do not engage in puns about the dead. He may come back to haunt you in your dreams. Have respect for the dead, please. History2007 (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"This article is not about science. Hence I do not agree." – Questions of correctness are not decided differently according to the article, only questions of weight. Evolution doesn't become "just a theory" here, and Genesis doesn't become "God's own words and therefore literally true", just because this is a religion article.

"As for no undue weight is put on the fact that Elvis is dead please do not engage in puns about the dead." – I was referring to the "Elvis lives" conspiracy theory, which is handled at Elvis Presley in much the same way that we need to handle creationism here: By stating the actual facts without stressing them unduly, and by mentioning the fringe theory with as much weight as its notability warrants. Hans Adler 18:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

He said "Academic Community", not science. And I don't think Pun means what you think it means.--King Öomie 19:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• WTF? Are they bashing the deceased equine of trying to exclude the word myth again? As a practising Christian I want to go on record as saying that I have no problem with the (precisely linguistically correct) use of the word myth in this context. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

They're slapping a ragged stick against an old bloody stain on the barn floor, yes. At least one individual in this argument seems to think the usage of the word is a grand injustice that requires action RIGHT THE HELL NOW. --King Öomie 17:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad writing

I'd like to ask a different question: why is the current lede: "Creation according to Genesis refers to the creation myth found in the first book of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Genesis" better thant the version that was fairly stable in the article for a long time: "Creation according to Genesis is the account of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman as found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible."? The older version is direct, accurate, neutral and conveys more information about the subject. The new version is vague, using the phrase "refers to", and is redundant, like saying "Shakespearean history refers to historical dramas written by William Shakespeare. Explaining a term by employing jargon that means pretty much the same thing is just bad writing. The term "creation myth" can be introduced later in a proper context. It's hard for me to see the lede change as an improvement. --agr (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Because Creation according to Genesis refers to a whole lot more than the creation of the world and of the first man and woman. Whereas the current intro concisely and precisely explains what the topic is about - a creation myth. This conveys a lot of useful information straight up, but in the event someone is unsure of the term a wikilink to an entire article devoted to the topic that this article is a representative of is given. Finer details, including an explicit mention of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman that you like, are given in the text following. Ben (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that the term "creation myth" should be introduced later. That would be like deferring the term "state" in the lead of France. However, I do agree that the first sentence is a bit clumsy. In trying to solve this, the fact that we needn't actually use the article's title literally might help. See WP:LEAD#First sentence: "However, 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." Hans Adler 12:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD#First sentence gives clear guidance here: "In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction." It also says "If its subject is amenable to definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." Anyone who knows what the term "Creation myth" means learns nothing from the current version. Someone who doesn't is diverted to another article, which is bad style and completely unnecessary. Ben is of course correct that there is more than one way to structure the introductory paragraph, but that cuts both ways. The specialist term "creation myth" can be introduce later and placed in its proper, neutral context, thereby avoiding all this drama. --agr (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, "creation myth" is clearly not specialised terminology on this Wikipedia. You might have more success with such a claim over at Simple English Wikipedia, though. The German word for creation myth is Schöpfungsmythos, and the first of the 2600 Google hits that come up for that combined with Religionsunterricht (religious education) make it very clear that this is standard material in religious education in Germany, covered already in 5th form (age approximately 11). For background: Religious education in Germany is payed for by the state, but choice of teachers and control over content lies with the churches. So there is no infiltration by evil atheists going on. Hans Adler 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What the German state does is beside the point here. History2007 (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct. But the fact that in major Western country teaching units on creation myths are standard starting from the fifth form is very relevant to the claim that it's "specialised terminology". Hans Adler 13:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, a term such as light year has a special meaning as a measure of distance, but most people, including Joan Baez (listen to diamonds and rust) and NY Times articles think it is a measure of time. Those technical terms mean little to the public. History2007 (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So are you trying to say that because some people lack basic science education and might be confused we should go edit the article on light year to include a section regarding it's colloquial use as a measurement of time and it's incorrect usage in folk music? The size of the FAIL in your arguements can be seen a light year away. This isn't Conservapedia, we don't sacrifice truth and accuracy in order to write articles that cater to the lowest common denominator. Nefariousski (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you made this comment on the right page? It does not seem to be related to anything else. Hans Adler 13:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

One could ask the same question about your discussion of the German educational system. In an important part of the English speaking work, the United States, religious instruction is not permitted in public schools. In any case, we do not write our articles on the assumption that everything our readers learned in school is still familiar to them. "Creation myth" is clearly a specialized term. --agr (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And yet, policy. There's a forum to argue its merits, and it's not this talk page. --King Öomie 14:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Creation myth" as a formal term is specialized terminology and should be avoided in the lede, in favor of a term whose colloquial sense is less likely to be interpreted as implying falsehood. It is contradictory to claim "It's a formal term, so it does not imply falsehood or POV" and "It's not a specialized term." I work in a top institution of higher learning where respect for various religious viewpoints is an important priority. Outside of an obvious formal scholarly discussion, referring to texts that are central to anyone's faith as a "myth" would be a quick ticket to trying to find a new job.Michael Courtney (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that academia and Wikipedia policy have many disparate policy points. The relevant texts are available for your perusal- WP:NPOV and WP:DUE amongst them. WP:RNPOV in particular addresses this issue. As mentioned above several times, "Theory" is a specialized term when used professionally, and this definition is abused day in and day out ("It's just a theory!!!"). Yet, the term remains in articles without an explicit in-line definition, because that's policy. To treat religious issues substantially differently would be inherently biased, wouldn't it? --King Öomie 15:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And to your other point, it's not Wikipedia's business to respect or disrespect various viewpoints. The relative span of reliable coverage determines the sentiment in the article, within reason (again, WP:DUE). If we were limiting ourselves to politically correct speech, there would be no images at Muhammad.

"Outside of an obvious formal scholarly discussion,"... Well, that's what this is. There's a lot of stuff here that's not conversational material. Try reading the article Nigger out loud at your next family gathering. --King Öomie 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the other policies King Öomie mentions that contradicts LEDE's imperative that the intro to articles should be written for non specialists. I don't think anyone is arguing that the term "creation myth" should not appear in this article. The question I raised is why the current first sentence is better than what was there before: "Creation according to Genesis refers to the creation myth found in the first book of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Genesis" vs. "Creation according to Genesis is the account of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman as found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible." The current sentence defines the subject in terms of a specialized term (which could be inferred from the title), the second defines the subject in plain English with a brief summary of the content of the story. That's just better writing. I'd also point out that the current version isn't even accurate. Many, but not all, scholars say the there are two distinct creation myths in Genesis, not one. The plain English version introduces that possibility without taking a position. Again, better writing.--agr (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But writing is one thing, agenda is another. The agenda of the non-believers vs believers is to shape the minds of the innocent who read this article. The rest is decorative reasoning phrased in terms of Wikipedia policies. History2007 (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the innocent. There's an appeal to emotion if I've ever seen one. I've maintained a single argument that has yet to be even ADDRESSED without strawmen- the opposition has been bouncing from argument to argument. --King Öomie 18:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that we have some simple statements here:

1. Myth as intended here is a technical term, which policy says should be avoided in the lede.
2. Policy also says that the word myth should be avoided to avoid confusion with the informal sense, which is perjorative.
3. There is no evidence to indicate that myth is preferred usage when the Genesis story is being written about in a non-technical way.

What conclusions do we reach? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Off of your 1. myth is not being used here, Creation Myth is being used here. They mean two different things much like college and Electoral College. Policy clearly states in wp:WTA#Myth and Legend that even if we were using the term "myth" all by itself it would be acceptable as long as it's used in the formal sense and as long as it is universally used across faiths which the article on Creation Myths accomplishes.

Off of your 2. The policy clearly states that context is key in the usage of the word "myth" and with a link to the article Creation Myth and a multitude of sources that provide formal definitions on the term that context is provided and due diligence is done to avoid violating WP:RNPOV and WP:WTA

Off of your 3. There is an astounding amount of evidence to indicate that Creation Myth is the appropriate term used far and wide to describe a faith based or supernatural account of how it all began as seen in the half dozen Google Tests and dozens of reliably sourced definitions and articles already posted above. Nefariousski (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence that a discouraged word should suddenly be encouraged because it is paired with another word. A creation myth is simply a myth about creation, and I know of no other definition. An electoral college has a specific definition (in the US at least) and is more than just a college that is about elections. That's why it's a special case.

In what way do you believe that the context changes the meaning of myth as we write here?

Someone above claimed that the Google test favoured myth. When I tested it the results were the opposite of what was claimed. (See my posts above). I see no explanation of the discrepancy. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's where you're wrong, as cited dozens of times above there are formal definitions of Creation Myth that go into far more detail than defining the words seperately (see college vs Electoral College example. Additionally the google test regarding definitions was against definitions. This is done by typing Define "Creation Myth" and comparing the results against Define "Creation Narrative" or whatever other substitute. The results show that as a distinct and meaningful term Creation Myth is a defined, well recognized and widely used term while the others are not. I don't want to re-iterate the same thing over and over but if you scroll up and look for my posts with all the citations you'll see the google test results. Nefariousski (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The word is not discouraged. Here are the relevant sentences: "However, except in rare cases, informal use of the word should be avoided, and should not be assumed. For instance, avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean something that is commonly believed but untrue. When using myth in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally, for instance by establishing the context of sociology, mythology or religion. Furthermore, be consistent; referring to "Christian beliefs" and "Hindu myths" in a similar context may give the impression that the word myth is being used informally."

This says very clearly that:

• we must not use "myth" in its informal sense (we don't)
• when using it in a formal sense we need to make clear that we don't mean the informal sense, e.g. through one of the following means:
  • setting a mythology context (we do, since we say "creation myth", not just "myth")
  • setting a religion context (we do, since the first sentence makes it clear that this article is about a religious topic).

Hans Adler 20:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Setting a religion context" is the first good argument for keeping myth that I've seen. However I don't think we establish the context of the word strongly enough. The word is used before we mention religion, and its existence in an article about religious scripture is not enough, given that many take the document as also being a scientific one. However I could be persuaded that a footnote would be sufficient additional context. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no need to make the religion context even stronger than it already is, because the words "creation myth", in this combination, refer (almost?) exclusively to the literary genre of which the book of Genesis is probably the most notable representative. But there is nothing wrong with rephrasing the first sentence and removing the schematic language ("[Title] refers to"), which we don't actually need because as I explained above we don't actually need to repeat the descriptive title in the first sentence. Instead we could have something like this: "The Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible, begins with an influential creation myth." (I am sure this wording can be improved.) Hans Adler 21:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Religious articles

Hans said something that comes to the heart of the issue. Do religious articles in Wikipedia in general include scientific analysis? If so, why not the one on Shiva or the Raising of Lazarus or the Burning bush?

Is there a branch of Hindu dedicated to proving (using terrible science) that their faith is literally historically accurate? --King Öomie 14:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That was a question, not an answer. And this article does not aim to prove anything, but summarizes what the book says. Please read the P, Q, R predicates in the logical analysis section above. And I think the existence of Shiva or the Raising of Lazarus is as much subject to debate as this article. History2007 (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have prefaced with "Let me answer your question with a question". But I was already aware that it was, in fact, a question. I was present when I held Shift and pressed "?". --King Öomie 16:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read the P, Q, R predicates in the logical analysis section above. History2007 (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read that section. I believe you missed the point with it, actually. We aren't debating the colloquial, informal use of the word Myth as a term used for something antiquated and incorrect. We're talking about the formal meaning, referring to an ancient faith-based belief, a definition which carries no intrinsic value judgment. --King Öomie 16:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's why you abused rudiments of logical formalism in a pointless way – it was some voodoo that supposedly turned a weak argument into an unassailable "logical" one. No, sorry, this method may work for a teacher in front of a class, but in Wikipedia you just don't get away with it. Hans Adler 18:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed the misunderstanding. As most people seem to have guessed by now, I was in fact replying to History2007 and misindented. My apologies for the mistake. Hans Adler 21:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see Strawman argument before you speak so eloquently from [REDACTED]. If I make an argument, and you refute a similar, but fundamentally DIFFERENT argument, pointing out the flaw in logic does not make me sneaky and manipulative. We've specified the definition we're talking about a good dozen times. I'm beginning to think this cognitive dissonance is intentional. --King Öomie 18:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you weren't speaking to me, in which case I apologize and instead direct my comment to those who continue to argue in this fashion. --King Öomie 18:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Hans was referring to History2007's Logical analysis "black box". Given History2007's last couple of comments above, it looks like he wrote it in the hope that no-one could swallow it and then use it to choke the life out any arguments he couldn't otherwise argue against. Cheers, Ben (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Unless you weren't speaking to me, in which case I apologize and instead direct my comment to those who continue to argue in this fashion."

Indeed, I realized from previous comments that he may have accidently indented too far. My anger at being accused of working logical Voodoo to pull a fast one distracted me from actually double-checking, and I apologize to Hans (though I don't know if he's seen it yet). --King Öomie 21:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Does your reasoning (which I do not accept) apply to Shiva or the Raising of Lazarus or the Burning bush? History2007 (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They should absolutely use the same wording this one currently uses. Then again, they're written largely by a different team of people.

I will restate-

• We use the definition we use because of policy.
• This isn't the proper forum to discuss changes to it. WT:NPOV is, take it there.

Take your complaints about speed limits to the lawmakers. Showing your disapproval by speeding only gets you a ticket. --King Öomie 16:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Let us see what others have to say. Obviously you think Shiva needs a myth tag too. History2007 (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Now hold on, I mean in the context of a creation myth. I wouldn't go so far as to call Shiva a "mythical diety" in the article or some such (biased) nonsense. --King Öomie 16:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is your biggest lack of understanding History2007 the word "myth" does not have the same meaning nor is it used in the same context as the term Creation Myth. Wait.... That's already been explained in detail over and over again. Am I being punked? Is there a hidden camera somewhere. "It's not funny Ashton, come out from behind the sofa!" Nefariousski (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I do not agree with either use here in the lead. History2007 (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It should certainly be reported in this article that some people claim the Genesis account to be an accurate scientific account of creation. Having said that there should certainly be some (not much) commentary on that claim.

Other cases are not exactly analogous. While many people claim that the Burning bush actually occurred, almost none claim that it was a scientific event - i.e. they would claim that it was a miraculous occurrence, outside of nature. There are a small number of people who do indeed posit scientific explanations, and some are discussed in the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Did someone say logic? or science?

Regarding, Ben's comment that: "It looks like History wrote the Logical analysis section it in the hope that no-one could swallow it" It was actually not my intent that way at all in the first case. At first I was just being the logician and clarifying it in logical terms, hoping it would make it clear that predicate Q would always be POV. But once you said general relativity folks in a tone that implied those scientists are above the fray and way beyond being confused with the book of Genesis, I answered in terms that made it clear that I know my relativity theory better than most people, for your question made it clear that you did not understand relativity. And given the accusatory tone (e.g. Hans saying "crazy people" who support Genesis) I think it is a good idea to make it clear that those who have read Genesis are not necessarily uneducated or ignorant as some comments here seem to imply. So the relativity material was perhaps hard to swallow for the layman, but you asked for it buddy. And I was in fact quite excited about entropy force today, so I brought that in. Believe me, it is an interesting idea. So if you do not like the scientific angle, I will slow on that front. How about the religious angle? I am going to pray tonight for many of you guys tonight so that God may shine his light of mercy on you and show you the path to peace. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you've missed most points and failed to understand most arguments on this talk page. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you continue to argue against concepts not in play and take offense to things that were not said. You've added absolutely nothing to this debate. --King Öomie 00:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Path to peace? Nobody comes to religious articles on Wiki in search of peace :) PiCo (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And with your assumption that people who read Genesis aren't necessarily ignorant or uneducated it is reasonable and fair to think that they will perform due diligence in understanding the formal meaning of Creation Myth and not take any offense where none is intended. Nefariousski (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That, or come here and complain for half a week about the same old thing. --King Öomie 18:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Touché Nefariousski (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, I didn't notice that earlier, but you're right- we aren't calling the religious stupid. We're assuming they can read something and know what it means. I've been arguing AGAINST "Well what if they're ignorant to this meaning?" this entire time. --King Öomie 18:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is exactly my point. Assuming that someone would take offense to a formally defined term that is long established and used academically etc......... means you have to assume said person isn't intelligent enough to understand the context in which the term is used. I don't think we should assume the average wiki reader or average person of faith is uneducated or too dense to take offense where any reasonable intelligent person would realize none is intended. I know that as a practice I personally look up the definition of any term I come across that I'm not completely familiar with instead of jumping to conclusions. After all isn't performing due diligence the the cornerstone of assuming good faith? Nefariousski (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Which comes back to my point several miles above- this dissent has nothing to do with policy, or editorial style. This has EVERYTHING to do with people being oversensitive and making trouble out of absolutely nothing. --King Öomie 19:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You two are in such a "heated agreement" with each other, I fear your keyboards may catch fire... But I do not agree at all. Deep down many opponents feel that science is King and religion is ignorance, even if that is not said upfront. Ben for instance, seems to have an amazing attachment to Einstein as a God the Father archetype. This may help set him free of that substitutionary archetype [19]. Anyway, it is beside the point really.... Your minds are set..... Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to psychoanalyse the editors here. It is considered uncivil and a violation of policy. Your "advice" is unhelpful and I suggest you strike it. Auntie E. (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

History2007, I disagree with the suggestion that you strike it. I see nothing that clearly warrants that. If the complainant wants to go through and identify potentially uncivil violations on this talk page, Auntie E. will find many to write about. Singling you out like this, given the wretched environment that has been created by such clearly offensive ugliness approaching gutter talk is not appropriate. Afaprof01 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Aunt Entropy? What an interesting user name.... Shall I psychoanalyze that?... Maybe not today, she has not insulted me yet. The person I talked about was Ben and he called me a fool only twice so far... but what do I care? As for me being singled out, maybe it is because I am just an ignoramus religious type with a PhD and over 50 science publications... but an ignoramus religious type according to some views I guess, so I get singled out.... I think I will go away and cry for some time now.... Makes me laugh... And Hans (Mr professional theorist) came out and flatly said that he does not believe that I know model theory... By the way Mr Hans professional Model Theorist, which way did C.C. the MOST famous model theorist of all time part his hair, right or left? His picture is not on the web, so you would have had to have met him to know... so which way was it? If you do not answer, there may be some analysis.... just kidding... History2007 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean to sound completely unhinged? You're not talking about the issue at hand anymore. You're talking about the individuals involved. If you can't stay on topic, then I request that you leave us be to discuss it. --King Öomie 22:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The surface issue at hand is the statement that it is not enough to summarize the book, but that it MUST have a "judgment from science" attached to it. The surface reasons given quote WP:X for a wide range of X. Yet the actual discussion is based on what I said above: the feeling among some that "science is King" and must trump religion within Wikipedia articles. You opened the door to the science discussion yourself above Mr King when you brought up "terrible science" referring to Genesis when I asked why Shiva is not classified as a myth, but Genesis is singled out for that purpose. you started revealing your feelings about it yourself.... Now, before I start analyzing your thoughts.... History2007 (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's great. Do you have anything to say about the term Creation myth?I have no interest in your other ramblings. I will say one final time: if you disagree with policy, DISCUSS IT AT THE POLICY'S TALKPAGE. --King Öomie 07:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Were you being sarcastic with "great" or serious. The term Creation myth is the predicate Q above applied to the book, it does not summarize what the book says, but attaches a judgment to it. Simple. Now why isthere no judgement attached to Shiva, again? History2007 (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Predicate Q" is complete nonsense, and has nothing to do with the topic of whether or not 'creation myth' is a scholarly, well-supported term (spoiler: it is). We're not talking about the word "myth". We're simply not. We're talking about "creation myth".

If he Shiva article talks specifically about that god's part in creation according to Hindu tradition, then yes, that section should certainly use the term "Creation myth", and not "sacred canon" or whatever else. No one here is advocating calling Shiva himself 'mythical', nor god in this article.PLEASE get this through your head, as I'm tired of explaining it. --King Öomie 00:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is incredibly silly. In the first sentence of an article about a novel we say that it is a novel and who wrote it. In the first sentence of an article about a creation myth we say that it is a creation myth. This is not about a "judgment from science" at all. It's about saying very concisely what kind of literary genre we are dealing with. History2007, you are making it a matter of science by trying to censor the correct term based on possible science-related overtones. But being only overtones they don't present a weight issue, and the associations being actually correct according to everybody but a few fringers they are not misleading either. Hans Adler 12:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tying this off.

I'm sorry to start another thread, but I need to ask a couple of quesitons:

1. Is there any valid objection to archiving the threads about the introductory sentence? The discussion seems to have reached a point of no return - the way "C.C" parts his hair - so I don't think leaving them open is going to be constructive at all.
2. Are we agreed there is consensus for the term creation myth in the opening sentence? If so, I suggest we create an FAQ at the top of this page outlining the "creation myth" question with a link to the previous discussion in the archives.

Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There is ABSOLUTELY no agreement on the term creation myth in the opening sentence. Not even a nice try, but there is no agreement at all. Indeed the discussion has just started, e.g. why is Shiva not a myth? No one even tried to answer that yet. History2007 (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

We may have overlooked what appears to be a very well-thought out compromise. User:Tonicthebrown, an evolutionist by self-description above. I hereby propose that User:Tonicthebrown's suggested wording become the first paragraph of the article.

Creation according to Genesis refers to the text found in the opening two chapters of the book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible. This text is regarded as a creation myth by scholars,[4] and as a religious account of creation by Christians and Jews."

— User:Tonicthebrown, "seconded" by User:AFAprof01

Rationale: It is not what I would write if I owned the article, but it's something I agree to live with since it deals with all major objections except for

• (a) omitting myth altogether, which I don't think is going to happen; and
• (b) putting myth immediately after the article title, which is the most objectionable possible place to put it. There is no practical way to move it any closer to the top, the place of greatest emphasis, viability, and notability.

Nothing is going to be either perfect or totally pleasing to everyone. One practical definition of a consensus is "a proposal we can all live with." As has been pointed out, there is a lot of rather obvious insisting on getting one's own way, and an accompanying unwillingness to negotiate or compromise. There is suggestion that some are using this as a form of amusement to insult and belittle others both personally and ideologically, not unlike the truculence that might accompany one who "picks wings off of flies." In society we honor competent, productive people of good sense, folks who understand that for a society to thrive, its people need to care for and cooperate with each other. Should the duty of Wiki editors be any less?

Respectfully, User:AFAprof01

Seeing as someone has brought up my earlier proposal, here's a small modification of it that may be more acceptable to the majority:

Creation according to Genesis refers to the text found in the opening two chapters of the book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible. This text has been identified as a creation myth by scholars, and has religious significance for Christians and Jews."

(By the way, I would not identify myself as an evolutionist. I am neither a young earth creationist or a theistic evolutionist.)

I think Afaprof has made a helpful comment, namely that none of us should behave as if we have ownership of this article. It would appear to me, having read much of the interaction above, that certain editors who support the existing lead are behaving in this way. Tonicthebrown (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It has not been overlooked since I replied to that proposal above. Honesty really does seem like a foreign concept to you Afaprof01. Anyway, I'm not going to repeat myself here, so if you want to reply to my comments above then do so, and I will reply there also. Ben (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

For sure there's no consensus on using the term "creation myth" in the first line. I remember predicting that this would happen, so it's just as well I'm not the sort to say I told you so. Though I did. But I'm not saying it. As for Tonic's suggestion, it's not really a starter I'm afraid - "Creation according to Genesis refers to the text found in the opening two chapters of the book of Genesis"? It doesn't refer to those chapters, it is those chapters. This isn't a definition, it's a tautology. PiCo (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pico and I would observe that whenever Ben feels pressured, he insults people, as he insulted Afaprof01 just here.... He will make an interesting subject for psychoanalysis. I wonder if he fears that I will pray for him... some people fear that... Anyway, who wants to "own" this article? Not me.... it is in a neighborhood with too many insulting people. But I think if you are to propose that Afaprof the order must certainly change, namely: "This text is regarded as a religious account of creation by Christians and Jews and as creation myth by some scholars." Since we can not be sure that all scholars agree. Pico, would you like to rewrite that since you know how? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence History2007, but I'd rather stay out of this hornet's nest - like you, I don't like to hang around unpleasant people. (And just for the record, I'm a secularist and an evolutionist) PiCo (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Copying the above proposed paragraph into the article. It's the closest we have to consensus. AFAprof01 19:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the current intro has consensus sans minor wording changes that have been discussed above (Hans comments come to mind, for instance). Changes like this one that go against policy, as I've explained above, will be reverted on sight. Ben (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Tonic's revision directly above seems acceptable. Bugs et al., to say that some people here insist on referring to the Biblical account as "fairy tales" sounds a bit like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The point has been made here countless times that the term "creation myth", based on the real definition of the term, implies no such thing. Additionally, saying lots of people might think "untruth" when they see it might be overlooking the possibility that readers might exercise due diligence and check the linked meaning of the term before assuming what it means. Those opposing "creation myth" should notice that the rest of us are not saying those words should necessarily appear unqualified; indeed, the fact that those words link to a definition of the term (which explains that the idea of "untruth" is not intended) completely removes any apprehensions I might have had as a Christian. As such, I hereby state my support for the term "creation myth". As it applies to me personally, I wouldn't care if it were called a narrative/story/account/whatever, since I do believe it to be factual – but the term "creation myth", as defined here on WP, is not incompatible with my beliefs, since it sounds plenty neutral to me. And that's all I have to say.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 04:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Ben. He has been on the verge of an edit war for long. History2007 (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ben has an obsession with characterizing the Old Testament texts as fairy tales. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Unanswered questions & unbalanced treatment of topic

I have several questions to which no answer has even been attempted. As a start, again, why does Shiva not have a scientific label "myth" attached to it? How about the Qur'an. It seems clear to me that Genesis is singled out here, perhaps due to specific agendas. In any case, this issue goes to the heart of unbalanced treatment of the topic. History2007 (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude, each one of those articles has their own talk page. You've wandered so far into irrelevant territory that I'm not even going to bother replying to your comments any more unless they're directly relevant to this article and in line with this projects policies. Ben (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the obvious, as usual. But the question is highly relevant. History2007 (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ben doesn't care about the other religions. His need to call religions a fairy tale is limited to the Bible - as he demonstrated many months ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

They're all listed under the Creation Myth article as Creation Myths Genesis is not being singled out. On the contrary not listing it as a Creation Myth does single this article out and thus violate WP:WTA#myth and legend. This has been explained over and over and over. Nefariousski (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not discuss other article here. See: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And Bugs, please focus on the topic, not the editors. Auntie E. (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you must not be aware that Ben has been pushing this viewpoint in a number of related articles, for quite awhile now. This article does not exist in a vacuum. This is a common theme across multiple articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're calling this a viewpoint, then I can only assume you're ignorant of the topic at hand- that is, the scholarly acceptance of the term "Creation Myth". --King Öomie 00:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You know Mr King, regarding the insult you handed Baseball_Bugs now by calling him ignorant, there is an old saying/joke in legal circles: "If the facts are against you argue the law, if the law is against you argue the fact, if both the facts and the law are against you, call the other guy a schmuck". So I guess both the facts and the policies must be against you to keep calling people ignorant. History2007 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ignorant \Ig"no*rant\, a. Unacquainted with; unconscious or unaware. If I'd meant to insult him, I would have kept typing and called him an ignoramus. But I didn't, so I didn't. Stop trying to stir up trouble. --King Öomie 00:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

While I'm talking about Bugs- If you're only here to talk about other editors, and have no actual input for this discussion, I'll ask you to... discontinue that activity. History2007 has that ground covered. --King Öomie 00:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you have disinvited me from this page more often than it has rained in Seattle. But no thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

At last count, once. --King Öomie 01:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

resolving the larger issue once and for all instead of piecemeal

Seems to me this same "myth" argument already happened at Creationism. Some of you here are well aware of that because you participated in that discussion as well. This can go one of two ways: We can have the same arguments and edit wars again and again across every page related to creationism, complete with blocks and page protections being handed out left and right until ArbCom gets involved and there is a months long WP:TLDR discussion and half of the involved users quit Wikipedia in disgust, or ya'll could have one, centralized discussion on this topic, establish a consensus for what descriptive word is to be used in all creationism-related articles, and abide by that decision whether you agree with it or not. The choice is before you now to take the high road, or the road that leads to ArbCom. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Creation myth is the proper description by reliable sources, and some don't like it because they feel the connotation is negative. Since WP:CENSOR is policy, and there is no WP:OFFEND to point to, these discussions end with the M-word being accepted by consensus. So that idea may not be acceptable to some. The minority will wish to replay the argument again and again. See Talk:Muhammad/Images. (It's a page I watchlist, and I couldn't reasonably refute those anti-image people's arguments while simultaneously accepting the anti-"myth" ones.) Auntie E. (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You and Ben are hiding behind one technical definition of "myth" to promote the point of view that the Bible is a collection of fairy tales, as that's what the general readership understands when they see the word "myth". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I don't consider the Bible to be fairy tales, not at all. I consider it's truth to be undeterminable. Which is what the definition of myth means. Auntie E. (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the general public knows that "myth" means "fairy tale". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RNPOV. Dictionary be damned, they know what it means. --King Öomie 01:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The primary usage of "myth" by the general public equates to an untrue story. Wikipedia is not written for "scholars", it's written for the general public. And when the first sentence says "the Bible is a lie", it's going to reinforce the perception that wikipedia has a liberal bias. That does not serve the interests of either the public or wikipedia well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This + this is a massive failure of WP:NPOV. Ben (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And for the 40th time this debate, someone argues against policy HERE, rather than at the policy page. Bugs, are you seriously debating that it is improper to use scholarly language relevant to the topic at hand? I think you're looking for Simple Wiki. --King Öomie 02:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "scholarly" encyclopedia, it's an encyclopedia written by and for the public. And insisting in the first sentence, that the subject of the article is a lie, is not a good start. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is doing that. Per RNPOV, worries about how many people know the technical definition of a term are irrelevant. If you disagree, argue there. --King Öomie 02:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm also wondering why they (Bugs in this case) never apply exactly the same logic to the term theory? As soon as you consider how the logic applies to other terms in the English language it's patently clear that it's a non-argument, and very likely the reason this is mentioned in the WP:NPOV policy. Ben (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to use the very first sentence of the article to label the Bible stories as lies, fairy tales, folk tales, whatever. That's a POV. The first sentence as it reads right now is totally neutral and totally factual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I implore you to look up the definition of "creation myth". Please.

"It's a lie! A farse! Fiction, I tell you!" <- This isn't it. Stop presenting it like it is. We're only talking about Genesis, which contains the judeo-christian creation myth. Which is what scholars call it. And thus, so do we. --King Öomie 02:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The article already covers the "creation myth" scenario in spades. The problem is that you want to ram it down the readers' throats, in the very first sentence, that the Bible is a pack of lies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Just like Theory of evolution jams the same sentiment down reader's throats, right? I mean, everyone KNOWS that's what Theory means. I guess Wikipedia has a conservative bias? --King Öomie 02:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Theory of evolution" is a well known expression. Calling the Bible a myth is the same thing as calling it a lie. It's a POV-push. The first sentence should stay the way it is, as it's the only neutral way to present the facts. And FYI, since you accuse me of bias, you don't have a clue as to what my true opinion is on the subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, don't deflect. "Theory of evolution" is well-known, but not its meaning. MANY people (typically southern Americans) think "It's just a theory!" is a legitimate argument, because they have no idea what the word means in a scientific context. This is the same issue, despite your protest. --King Öomie 03:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the statement that I consider it's truth to be indeterminable is the first logical statement I have heard from the opposition here. The Wikipedia page on Indeterminacy is alas poorly written, but a statement along those lines may start to bring logic into this discussion, although the introduction of the term indeterminable into the article may be too much. I could type 20 page son indeterminacy, but maybe not today. However, as a member of the general public I had never considered myth and indeterminable as equivalent, and my understanding of myth was what Bugs stated, i.e. a fake and untrue story used to achieve a goal. But then maybe I am just an ignoramus scientist anyway and everyone else is smarter than me .... History2007 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead text

Currently it reads "Creation according to Genesis refers to the text found in the opening two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible. This text is regarded as a religious account of creation by Christians and Jews and as a creation myth by scholars." To me, this is worded perfectly. The first sentence describes in totally factual and NPOV terms what it is. The second sentence describes how it's regarded by true believers and scholars. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to push the "myth" POV in the first sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is talking about a creation myth, and as such should state this in the lead sentence. It's really that simple, and no valid argument has been presented against doing so. Ben (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That's funny, the definition of Creation Myth is a religious or supernatural account of creation. Aren't we being redundant? Nefariousski (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the article is about the start of the Bible. As the second sentence makes clear, the "myth" part is a matter of opinion, not fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a fact, and there exist citations for this fact (and the mainstream acceptance of this fact) in the text above. Ben (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with Ben at all. Simply stating it is a fact 1000 times achieves nothing. And I do not see the big deal here. In fact, I think BeebleBrox's comments were very much to the point. And I think BaseballBugs has said the right things again and again. However, if Arbcom needs to settle the matter so be it. I am ready for the long haul. Moreover, I think the reasonable comments BeebleBrox made to Ben on Ben's talk page were a good piece of the lecture Ben needed. A fee more such lectures by Admins will be in order. History2007 (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I did more than simply state something, I referenced this fact and the fact that the mainstream consider it so. Ben (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

History2007: Baseball Bugs has ignored the arguments to discuss the motivations of the editors "again and again." Not surprising you may think that is good argumentation, since you engaged in the same thing above.

I think using the term "creation myth" with a bit of a definition is infinitely preferrable to the inline attribution of "Scholars consider" which actually gives the wrong idea about the definition of the term. Many Jews and Christians also consider it a creation myth because they aren't ignorant of the definitions of the term. So Bugs' lede is not accurate. Auntie E. (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's already thoroughly covered. But Ben's not satisfied with that. He wants to insist, in the first sentence, that it's a fairy tale. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "Insist" would be an appropriate middle name here my friend. And he also insisted that he was not close to the 3revert line. But we all learn... some sooner than others.... History2007 (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Auntie E. makes a good point. Saying "Scholars consider" kind of makes it sound like scholars don't believe in the story of creation, but christian and jews do.Chhe (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a point. It's saying that only the ignorant consider the Bible to be "true". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, it's not OK that you also engage in this disruption now. There may be parts of the Bible whose literary genre is that of a fairy tale, but I doubt it. (I guess I would know about them.) The literary genre of this particular part is that of a creation myth, and there is no reason to censor this fact, just like there is no reason to censor the fact that communism is an ideology or beer is an alcoholic beverage. Hans Adler 13:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, infinitely preferrable is an interesting term, but involves someone who does the preferring, of course. Hence a point of view. As I have said above much of the discussion here is decorative reasoning used to achieve an agenda (by both sides). Until that is accepted Arbcom is at the end of this tunnel. However, I think your point about "not all Jews and Christians" is valid and a modifier of some type may be in order. AfaProf is probably the person to craft the modifier. History2007 (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Auntie E and King Öomie on this. ArbCom doesn't decide content issues, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The word "myth" has at least two meanings. First, the formal academic one, is "a religious account explaining how the world came to be as it was". The other, informal and colloquial, is "a false story". That means that the text This text is regarded as a religious account of creation by Christians and Jews and as a creation myth by scholars is to be interpreted as either

This text is regarded as a religious account of creation by Christians and Jews and as a religious account of creation by scholars.

or as

This text is regarded as a religious account of creation by Christians and Jews and as a false story by scholars.

The first interpretation is repetitive. The latter interpretation is outright false. Scholars do certainly not consider the creation account to be false. Geologists/biologists/Catholics/etc. say the Genesis shouldn't be interpreted as being literally true, but that doesn't mean that they say it is false. Either way you chose to interpret the word "myth", that sentence is horribly misleading. Gabbe (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

At last some logic. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The second sentence of the current, protected version is not acceptable at all. Fact is that the text is regarded as both a religious account of creation and a creation myth by almost everybody, including Christians, Jews and scholars. Let's look a bit closer:

• What does "religious account of creation" mean?

1. Mainstream reading: It is a religious story about the origin of the world. No particular claims are made about whether the "truth" of the story is to be found on a literal or a more metaphorical level.
2. Minority (creationist) reading: It is a historically and scientifically accurate description of the origins of the world.

With the mainstream reading, saying without further qualifications that "Christians and Jews" regard it that way is accurate but misleading, because so does almost everybody else including scholars. And the continuation of the sentence suggest that scholars contradict. With the minority reading, saying that "Christians and Jews" regard it that way is seriously misleading as it implicitly states that most Christians and Jews are creationists, which is simply not true. Cheap rhetorical tricks such as playing with the two possible readings of a phrase to promote a fringe theory have no place in Wikipedia.

• What does "creation myth" mean?

1. Normal reading: It's a literary genre, see creation myth.
2. Minority reading: It's a myth in the colloquial sense that talks about creation, thus roughly a synonym for "creationist myth".

With the normal reading of "creation myth" most Christians and Jews actually agree with the scholars that Genesis starts with a creation myth. (As I explained previously, putting the creation myth in Genesis into the context of contemporaneous creation myths is standard material in Christian religious education at least in Germany.) The opposition Christians/Jews think vs. scholars think, however, suggests the second reading. But this is not at all OK according to WP:WTA#Myth and legend: We are not supposed to use "myth" in this sense at all. We only use it in a technical sense, and then we must make it clear that we mean the technical sense, no go out of our way to suggest the non-technical sense.

Hans Adler 13:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So the long and short of it Hans? How will you say that some Christians think X and Scholars think Y. The opposing sentence wants just the scholars and no mention of Christian and Jews. So suggest 3 sentences please. History2007 (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the single sentence as it stands. --King Öomie 14:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My question was to Hans. I know what the "Ben and the King" duo wants. I would like to hear from other editors now, e.g. Hans and Aunt Entropy if they want to come up with suggestions. I would suggest that each suggestion have two components X and Y that address the religious and scholarly issues. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not OK at all to say that "some Christians think X and Scholars think Y". First we present the facts, and then we mention the creationist fringe view. Hans Adler 08:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Break

Let me try to recap the above debate, if I may. I think most of us agree that:

1. The word "myth" could mean both "false story", and "sacred narrative explaining how the world came to be". Lets, for the sake of clarity, call the first meaning myth¹ (="false story") and the latter myth² (="sacred narrative").
2. Christians, Jews and scholars all agree that Genesis is a creation myth².
3. WP:WTA#Myth and legend suggests that we should not use the word myth¹ at all, but that we may use the word myth² when appropriate.
4. Describing Genesis as a myth¹ in this article is inappropriate.
5. The question is: When we say "Genesis is a creation myth", will casual readers of this article interpret this as

1. the offensive "Genesis is a myth¹", or
2. the truthful "Genesis is a creation myth²"?

Am I right so far? If so, isn't there some way we can use the word "myth" in the article's lede to clarify that we mean to say that it's a myth² without saying it's a myth¹? Gabbe (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much. Our point is that WP:RNPOV specifically states that the final question you posit is irrelevant, and that the formal meaning (myth²) is ALWAYS to be used. --King Öomie 16:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"...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." --King Öomie 16:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, and that if they disagree with that reasoning, that WT:NPOV is the forum for that discussion, NOT this page. --King Öomie 16:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Gabbe has a logical train of thought. However, as I stated above, I would like to hear what other opposing editors beside "Ben and the King" (whose views are well known) suggest as two sentences X and Y each addressing the religious and scholarly issues. It would be best if we just get their suggestions first, sans endless debate, then see where that leads. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Making a false distinction is not encyclopedic. The sentence that has been fully protected in the page is absolutely inaccurate, and even worse than leaving out the words CM all together. I will accept an in-line definition of "creation myth." Let's take this opportunity to enlighten those on the meaning of this phrase instead of demanding they stay ignorant. (On Muhammad, we give the opportunity for viewers to turn off the images. We don't delete them, no matter how many times those offended beg, plead and threaten.) Auntie E. (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Apart from debate, I was asking you to suggest a new lead and different lead on your own. Then we see what happens. It will cost nothing to suggest. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Except time, copious amounts of which have been wasted by you rehashing the same arguments. The lead, as it was, had no issues.Two statements are not needed to deliver the same information- the sentence there now is unambiguous pandering to Christian sensibilities. All christians and jews see Genesis as a creation myth- the term does not imply falsity. To present it otherwise is purely disinformation. --King Öomie 17:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant "pure disinformation". History2007 (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the lead did have style issues. "[Long descriptive title] refers to ..." is not a good format for a lead at all. It's Wikipedia-speak of the worst kind. But it should be possible to fix this issue without giving in to creationist POV pushing. Hans Adler 17:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I mean that it wasn't the sneaky, horrible atheistic conspiracy that's been presented. --King Öomie 17:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course it isn't. And I am quite surprised by the strategy that is being tried here. So far I have only heard of repeating "[Those guys who are really on our side but not extreme enough] are far, far on the other side and shouldn't be allowed to continue because they are so extreme!!!" as a strategy of the US right wing. It's the first time I see this thoroughly unethical strategy applied on a talk page. Hans Adler 17:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting more annoying at the tactic of completely glossing over points they can't refute, and instead focusing on a separate issue that hasn't turned against them yet.

• "It's offensive!" Not so much.
• "Policy is against it!" Demonstrably not so.
• "....Let's all post suggestions for changes to the sentence with no problems!" --King Öomie 17:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hans Adler: Unfortunately the wording "refers to" is necessary unless we take the drastic step of changing the title to actually put in the noun that is currently missing in between the words "creation" and "according." Auntie E. (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have pointed to it before, but I am not sure that anyone is listening:

"If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface. So, for example, Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers begins with:

A dynamic loudspeaker driver's chief electrical characteristic is its electrical impedance versus frequency.

Simple descriptions such as “History of the United States” or “Timeline of prehistoric Scotland” should be bold."

This is straight from WP:LEAD. The present title is somewhere in between the "descriptive" and "simple descriptions" examples, so it would be OK to simply not repeat the title literally in the first sentence. Hans Adler 08:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(→ Auntie E.) Alternatively to biblical creation myth or Genesis creation myth, as used in books like the award winning Tree of souls: the mythology of Judaism and many many other sources. This would actually let us completely disambiguate the term creation myth in the opening sentence, for instance, The biblical creation myth is the (some favoured expansion of the term creation myth here) contained in the first two chapters of the first book of the Hebrew bible, the book of Genesis. It would also be consistent with most other pages on creation myths on Wikipedia (Chinese creation myth, Sumerian creation myth, etc., and the countless X mythology pages). Ben (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me and looks like a good compromise. Hans Adler 11:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for suggestions

I would like to ask willing opposing editors to provide a different suggestion each for the lead, to see what happens. Please provide your "suggested lead" without debate just as a paragraph. That will cost nothing, and it will be best to just obtain ideas first to hear what people think on their own. Please use a different suggestion each to get your own thoughts into the picture. Please just provide what you would like to see, regardless of the justifications. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made such a suggestion. Not sure why it was ignored. You are free to copy it here. Hans Adler 17:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry this page is so long I am not sure where it is. Could you please just type it here, remove my comment and yours and just leave it here as a starting item for a list. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"regardless of the justifications."

This is counter-productive. --King Öomie 18:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

List of suggested paragraphs

• 1. Creation according to Genesis refers to the creation myth found in the first book of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Genesis. --King Öomie 17:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

* 2 Creation according to Genesis refers to the account of creation found in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis, the Hebrew Bible. For Jews and Christians the text is highly esteemed with religious authority, though interpreted in a wide variety of ways. Scholars frequently refer to the account as an example of creation myth in their attempts to pinpoint its proper literary genre, though the commonalities and differences with other creation myths are much disputed. ─AFAprof01 19:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Replaced below:

• 2 Creation according to Genesis refers to the account of creation found in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. Scholars frequently refer it by its literary genre, creation myth─a neutral term that takes no position on accuracy or inspiration. Jews and Christians in varying degrees esteem the text as religious authority while interpreting it in a wide variety of ways. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• 3 Creation according to Genesis refers to the Creation Myth (Defined as a Religious or Supernatural story about the beginnings of life, the Earth and or universe ) found in the first book of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Genesis. Nefariousski (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• 4. Creation according to Genesis refers to the creation narrative (formally 'myth') as found in the first two chapters of the Hebrew Bible. ^rossnixon 01:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Creation according to Genesis is a narrative found in the opening two chapters of the first book of the Hebrew Bible. This creation myth is regarded by some Christians and Jews as a literal and authoritative account of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman. (redacted, see below) Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• 5. Creation according to Genesis is a creation myth (defined as a supernatural story describing the origin of the universe, Earth, and life) found in the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible. Auntie E. (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• 6. The biblical creation myth is the (some favoured expansion of the term creation myth here) contained in the first two chapters of the first book of the Hebrew bible, the book of Genesis. Ben (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• 7. Creation according to Genesis is a narrative found in the opening two chapters of the first book of the Hebrew Bible, comprising one or more creation myths describing the origins of the universe and life from a Judeo-Christian perspective. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• 8. Creation according to Genesis refers to the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Christian Bible and the first book of the Pentateuch. Handed down from ancient Judaism and preserved through oral kerygma, this creation account is shared by both Judaism and Christianity. Most Biblical scholars refer to Genesis as a creation myth with the underlying message of an God that is a part of all things. However, there are Scholars that would maintain a literal translation of the text. CapHammer (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

List of suggested paragraphs with comments

• Creation according to Genesis refers to the creation myth found in the first book of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Genesis. --King Öomie 17:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment- Barring stylistic changes to the presentation of the article title, but the back half of the statement is perfectly fine. --King Öomie 17:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Creation according to Genesis refers to the account of creation found in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis, the Hebrew Bible. For Jews and Christians the text is highly esteemed with religious authority, though interpreted in a wide variety of ways. Scholars frequently refer to the account as an example of creation myth in their attempts to pinpoint its proper literary genre, though the commonalities and differences with other creation myths are much disputed. ─AFAprof01 19:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• You can't be serious. --King Öomie 19:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Firstly Creation Myth Isn't a literary genre and what are the disputes over commonalities and differences? Isn't the Biblical Creation Myth a religious or supernatural story about how everything was created? I'm pretty sure there's universal agreement by all parties on that one. Nefariousski (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• You can't be serious. It is really tedious to have to keep explaining the notion of "myth" and "creation myth" to people who couldn't be bothered to look it up on their own. --dab (𒁳) 20:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dab, that debate has taken place, N times on this page, with N growing rapidly. Now I am just gathering paragraphs from different users to show the wide range of opinions. Please let users suggest paragraphs for a day or two, just to see what they "like to see". That may just provide a better idea of user perspectives, which are obviously diverse. History2007 (talk)

No more policy discussion? Done with literary deconstruction? We're down to OPINIONS now? Irrelevant. I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that you're presenting this debate as continuing ad nauseum. --King Öomie 20:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Policy and other discussions can take place all over this page of course. This list can grow in parallel - no extra charge. History2007 (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Some references to contemporary theologians, specifically supporting Afaprof01's version: <ref>''The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17'' (part of ''The New International Commentary on the Old Testament'') by Victor P. Hamilton, 1990, p. 56-58.</ref><ref>P. Grelot, ''Le Couple humain dans l'Ecriture'', 1964, quoted in ''Creation Theology'', Jose Morales, 2001, p. 161</ref><ref>"The Phenomenology of Symbol: Genesis I and II" by Frank Flinn, in ''Phenomenology in Practice and Theory: Essays for Herbert Spiegelberg'', William S. Hamrick, 1985 p. 235</ref><ref>''[[International Standard Bible Encyclopedia]]'', article entry "MYTH", 1994 edition.</ref><ref>''Systematic Theology'', [[Robert Jenson]], 1997, p. 11</ref><ref>Richard E Averbeck, "Sumer, The Bible and Comparative Method" in ''Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Evaluations'', 2003, p. 109.</ref>. But, I suppose these do not qualify as "theologians" by the "only those who agree with us are the true theologians" litmus test. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think those are poor references at all but do have one issue with their relevence to the topic at hand. Their writings are not regarding the concept of creation as an interfaith topic. Nobody is disputing that Christians or any faith for that matter think their Creation Myth is holy, sacred, beyond reproach etc... I have a hard time seeing the justification or need to say that Christians believe in and hold in high esteem stories in a book that chronicle their beliefs. That's much akin to saying that fans of Star Trek hold the Star Trek series of TV shows and movies in high esteem. Furthermore, The concept of the differences and similarities to other Creation Myths is out of place in the intro but would make an excellent section in the article and surely those sources you found would provide for a lot of interesting comparisons between the Abrahamic Religions and the rest of the assorted faiths out there. Nefariousski (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Creation according to Genesis refers to the Creation Myth (Defined as a Religious or Supernatural story about the beginnings of life, the Earth and or universe ) found in the first book of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Genesis. Nefariousski (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In my view this one makes the most sense of the five listed so far. Gabbe (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Creation according to Genesis is a narrative found in the opening two chapters of the first book of the Hebrew Bible. This creation myth is regarded by some Christians and Jews as a literal and authoritative account of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman.

  If all that really matters on one side of the argument is that the word "myth" is not in the first sentence, and all that really maters on the other side is that the word "myth" not be relegated to some sort of marginalized scholarly opinion, why can't the first sentence avoid the word, and the second sentence start with the fact that the article refers to a creation myth? Everybody knows that Michael Jackson is the King of Pop, but it's not mentioned until the second sentence. Is this really that difficult? Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Half-way there. The 2nd part is to define creation myth as a literary genre not implying fiction or fantasy. Can you propose a way to do that as well? ─AFAprof01 (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see creation myth. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Michael Jackson article is about "an American singer, dancer, and entertainer", this article is about a creation myth. Ben (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And by that you suggest that it is not about a narrative, nor is it found in the opening two chapters? No one is trying to take away your precious myth descriptor. (Well, at least at this point I assume they're not.) All that is being asked is that it is introduced after the first sentence. Is that too much of a concession to make? Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is about a creation myth, and you're asking that the article not tell readers this in the first sentence. Would you ask that the Michael Jackson article not tell readers that he was "an American singer, dancer, and entertainer" until the second sentence? Please tell me you see how silly this request is. Ben (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is "creation myth" the only apt descriptor that you can conjure for this topic? Why not "sacred narrative"? Why not "historical account"? Why not "ancient story"? Why not "religious teaching"? All fit the bill. There are plenty of verifiable things that the reader is not told in the first sentence. And the first sentence makes perfect sense without any of them. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If the relevant experts refer to this articles topic as a creation myth why would we not? I'm not looking for information on any other terms, I would just like to know why we would not keep in line with the relevant experts? Cheers, Ben (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

In case you failed to read the actual suggestion, it doesn't propose to eliminate the phrase "creation myth". It seeks merely to move it into the second sentence to assuage the (by my rough count on this page alone) ten or so editors who agree that it's out of place as an unqualified term in the opening sentence. My math may be slightly off, but it seems that your horn of "the only place the term can go is immediately after the title" is only being tooted by 3 or 4 editors. Wouldn't you think a reasonable compromise would be to leave the term unqualified, but move it to the second sentence? It's still a highly relevant term if introduced 16 words later. The only significant qualifiers before it in my suggestion are "narrative" and "Hebrew Bible". Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't answer the question. Let me rephrase: This article is about a creation myth (per relevant experts), why would we not introduce the article as such? Ben (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Your question is invalid. My suggestion includes the use of "creation myth". Therefore, we do introduce it as such. My question still exists. Why are you unwilling to allow the use of that word in the second sentence rather than the first? Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My question is valid. You introduce the article's topic and only after that do you use the term creation myth. My question is centred around looking for a valid reason to do that. And I answered your question already: relevant experts describe this article's topic as a creation myth, and we should introduce the topic as such. Alternate terminology can be introduced later (after the introductory sentence) if the need arises. Cheers, Ben (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

By it's very definition this article describes a Creation Myth. "Sacred Narrative" or any of your other suggestions are not formal terms nor do they have academic definitions that apply to this article. There is no valid reason to shift it down or minimalize it. Nefariousski (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In my view, the big problem with this suggestion is that it puts the view that Genesis is "a literal and authoritative account" in the second sentence. This is a viewpoint held by a very small minority, not only in natural science but in Christianity, Judaism and general biblical scholarship as well. While this view might deserve mention somewhere in the article, bluntly putting it in the lead paragraph would go against WP:DUE, WP:GEVAL, etc. Gabbe (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is why I think a different version merits consideration: In general, a good definition should not use the word being defined. Therefore, to start an article on the Fall of Man stating that it is a story about man's fall from a perfect state would be poor writing. In the same way, defining "Creation according to Genesis" as a creation myth... is redundant. That's why I proposed restating it to begin the second sentence. A good definition requires a classifier and a differentiator. The classifier tells the reader which bucket it's in, and the differentiator tells the reader how it's unlike the others in the bucket. It should avoid the use of "refers to", if possible. Therefore, Creation according to Genesis is a narrative [classifier], found in the opening two chapters of the first book of the Hebrew Bible [differentiator]. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In this case the Classifier is Creation Myth which shouldn't sound redundant with the title of the article because it's actually referring to the story of Genesis 1-2 not "Creation according to Genesis" as some well used formal term. The differentiator is the Hebrew Bible which makes it a unique Creation Myth. I do see your point about being redundant in definitions but I don't see Creation and Myth as seperate entities in the sentance but as one term. Much in the same way I wouldn't oppose an article on "Electoral process in the United States" having the term Electoral College in it's opening paragraph or part of a definition. If the title of the article was "Creation Myths of Genesis" then I think your point would be 100% valid. Nefariousski (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Maher-shalal-hashbaz, did you see my suggestion above about the article title that would then allow us to accommodate both of our preferences? Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. I would like to (A) recant my statement about numbers of editors favoring the opposing sides of this issue, and (B) offer another possible compromise. It appears after careful study of the page that there are slightly more editors favoring the unqualified use of the term "creation myth" in the opening sentence of the lead paragraph. However, there are still a significant number of editors who oppose this term. While some may wish the term banned completely, the majority seem only to wish it qualified/defined, or desire to have it introduced later in the lead paragraph. I would like to propose the following, which simply moves the term further within the first sentence, so that it is not the absolute first term the reader encounters. Perhaps this will pass muster:

• Creation according to Genesis is a narrative found in the opening two chapters of the first book of the Hebrew Bible, comprising one or more creation myths describing the origins of the universe and life from a Judeo-Christian perspective. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  To me, that sounds like it would satisfy both sides of this discussion. Very well written, I think.
  -Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 04:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Genesis contains more than one creation myth? If this is a way of implying "there's at least a creation myth (=formal term) in it, there might be a myth (=informal term) in there as well" then that would be against WP:WTA#Myth and legend. We're not supposed to use this informal meaning of the word "myth". Gabbe (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Creation according to Genesis is a creation myth (defined as a supernatural story describing the origin of the universe, Earth, and life) found in the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible. Auntie E. (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would really like a definition template on the article that one can click to after the words "creation myth" (in fact, I remember a compromise of the sort used in a situation like this) rather than the inline definition, but I think the definition should be on the page. Our goal should be to enlighten our readers. More information is a good thing. Auntie E. (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. While I tend to not be a fan of inline definitions after a formal term that is wikilinked to the article for said formal term (seems redundant to define something that can be clicked on and read for more detail) something additional seems to be required to reach consensus. Also along the lines of following previous compromises why not add a FAQ section to the talk page that addresses any possible points of confusion? Nefariousski (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nef: How about selecting something additional from the list of items that are already agreed upon. I will start such a list below. Thanks for suggesting it. History2007 (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

FAQ sections on talk pages (even edit notices) only stop users capable of stopping to read. If you have WT:SIG watchlisted, you might notice that that isn't many. --King Öomie 19:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• The biblical creation myth is the (some favoured expansion of the term creation myth here) contained in the first two chapters of the first book of the Hebrew bible, the book of Genesis. Ben (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ben's suggestion makes a lot of sense. It's bold, but accurate. It has the potential to appease all sides of the debate (depending on the wording you left out in the paranthesis). It's clearly in line with WP:WTA#Myth and legend, WP:RNPOV, and other policies. It was suggested more than 15 hours ago and nobody has (yet) said they thought it was a bad idea. Gabbe (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Creation according to Genesis refers to the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Christian Bible and the first book of the Pentateuch. Handed down from ancient Judaism and preserved through oral kerygma, this creation account is shared by both Judaism and Christianity. Most Biblical scholars refer to Genesis as a creation myth with the underlying message of an God that is a part of all things. However, there are scholars that would maintain a literal translation of the text. CapHammer (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to comments. I have no agenda, just an interest in the area.I'm happy to add as many references as people would like.CapHammer (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Like with the redacted suggestion above, the big problem with this is that it brings up the literalist interpretation crowd in the final sentence. This is a very small minority. It would be like saying "However, there are scholars that would maintain that Genesis was written by the lizard people from outer space". It's WP:UNDUE. Also, the ones calling Genesis a creation myth is not limited to Biblical scholars, but includes anthropologists, philosophers of religion, etc. How about changing "Most Biblical scholars" to "Academics"? Gabbe (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Gabbe! Re- Changing "Most Biblical scholars" to "Academics" - That's a great idea! I should have thought of that. The broader term does encompass the larger group of disciplines that see it as important mythologically. I agree with you observation. I do see your point about creationists, but creationism using Genesis as a basis is still a very real belief. Maybe we could concede the point by saying "A minority of scholars would maintain a literal translation of the text"? or "There are a small number of people..." From a perspective of a sociological hermeneutic, there are a number of laity as well as clergy who still teach Genesis as literal. Maybe this article should reflect that, as disagreeable as that may sound. Open to ideas! CapHammer (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• 2 (revised) Creation according to Genesis refers to the account of creation found in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. Scholars frequently refer it by its literary genre, creation myth─a neutral term that takes no position on accuracy or inspiration. Jews and Christians in varying degrees esteem the text as religious authority while interpreting it in a wide variety of ways. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This makes a lot more sense than your previous version. However, I still find parts of it problematic. First of all, articles generally don't start off with "scholars frequently refer it by [...]" with no contrasting opinion. See WP:V: This kind of in-line attribution is what we typically do when the sources themselves are in conflict. If there's no conflict among reliable sources, we don't attribute - we just say. The wording you've suggested implies that there's something wrong or iffy with the term "creation myth". Now, I know that you feel that there is, but if you want to include this in the article (even by way of a vague implication) this needs to be substantiated by reliable sources. Do you have sources specifically saying that a notable amount of academics are opposed to labelling the Genesis account by the term "creation myth"?

The lead should say something about how the religions themselves view the creation account. But since opinions about "creation" really run the gamut there isn't much we can say except that it is interpreteted in a whole lot of ways, and listing the most prominent examples. I think your last sentence could be improved to clarify this point. Gabbe (talk) 07:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I very much appreciate this feedback, Gabbe. Thanks for taking the time to critique but also provide constructive suggestions. I have incorporated some in the proposal below. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

why was this article protected?

If the stable, established revision is under attack, just let them run into WP:3RR. If there are serious suggestions, let people seek consensus before editing, under WP:BRD. I will certainly assist in rolling back misguided edits such as this. --dab (𒁳) 20:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The page was previously under protection at the beginning of this debate. When that expired, History2007 and Afaprof quickly moved it to their version, and ran to ANI, insisting that the edit war was back in full swing, and it needed to be protected RIGHT NOW (as in, on their revision, which is demonstrably factually inaccurate). --King Öomie 20:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

King speaks with forked tongue. AFAprof made no such request. AFAprof01 21:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Forked tongue is a bit harsh. I stand corrected- you did not, in fact, post at Wikipedia:ANI#Protection request. I just sort of assumed based on your track record for agreeing whole-heartedly with History2007. --King Öomie 21:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this page is just a myth anyway... Maybe we are all dreaming.... This could not be reality.... This page is a myth.... History2007 (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

While I won't go as far as to say AFAprof01 is party to some sort of conspiracy with History2007 the evidence is pretty clear that he did change the contested content mid discussion and then History2007 shortly thereafter sought to have the article protected again [20] Nefariousski (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow.... what are you going to suggest next? That the Pope was in on the cospiracy too? Were any of the Swiss Guards involved by any chance? History2007 (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "Suggest" anything. I made a completely unemotional and non accusatory statement based on facts which were cited and verifiable and beyond question. You took it personally and tried to undermine the issue at hand with nonesense. So... more or less business as usual for the past couple weeks here...

Nefariousski (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that you haven't made a single constructive post to this page in 24 hours. Nef just specifically said "No" to any mention of a conspiracy. --King Öomie 21:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so no Swiss Guards and no one on the Grassy Knoll. Great. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I did make one improvement at least, I corrected the use of "pure disinformation" in your post since you needed to have used an adjective, not an adverb. I had noticed those a few times... but what do I know... History2007 (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Additionally the accusations of gaming the RFC system didn't do a whole lot to help build consensus one way or another. Multiple guidelines and policies, factual accuracy and scholarly / academic sources support one side, appeals to sensitivity support the other. Nefariousski (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The accusation of vote stacking didn't help? Or the vote stacking itself? Ben (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

so, it transpires that AFAprof01 and History2007 are tag-teaming in an edit-war. Just warn them and move on. Until they manage to presento some sort of coherent case, this can just be handled at the administrative level. History2007's metaphysical comment above shows that they haven't even come as far as grasping the primary dictionary meaning of "myth". This is as far removed as can be from any bona fide Wikipedians' dispute, which must be based on conflicting interpretation of the content and/or reliability or notability of scholarly references. I don't see any of that going on here. Article protection is for bona fide content disputes. Disruptive editing should just be adressed by 3RR and the warn-block cycle. --dab (𒁳) 09:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is about a creation myth and also about a myth that is untrue

This is an article about the creation myth contained within the Book of Genesis. I do not understand why anyone would dispute this. In the arguments above and archived, all I see from those opposed to calling a spade a spade is that they are afraid that someone coming to this article and reading that the creation story in Genesis is a creation myth will think that Wikipedia is saying that the creation story in Genesis is untrue - even though that's not what the text "the creation story in Genesis is a creation myth" actually says. However, the creation story in Genesis is both a myth and untrue. So even the unintended consequences are okay. If someone comes away thinking that creation according to Genesis did not actually happen that way, that's good because there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the natural history of the Earth or the universe corresponds to this myth. So what's the controversy about?

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the side of this debate with a foot to stand on. --King Öomie 21:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's already hard enough to get certain editors to understand concepts like Proper Nouns, Wikipedia Policy, the concept of "context" and that sometimes words mean different things when combined with other words. While I appriciate and value additional comments let's try not to make too many inflammatory remarks. This pot does not need further sirring. Nefariousski (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

To wit, I've been staying away from the Science side, myself, as it's really not needed, and only serves to fuel the debate (as one more thing to misinterpret). As with any creation myth, science doesn't need to disprove it for it to BE a creation myth. --King Öomie 21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE#Evaluating claims, we should not focus on the scientific inaccuracies in Genesis at all. However, what I'm saying is that the unintended consequences of not knowing what the definition of a term is and instead using a different definition align with the fact that the story contained in Genesis lacks basis in empirical fact (similar to the creation myths from other cultures and religions). So it seems to me that, perhaps unique among these sorts of arguments, the unintended consequence of calling this story a "creation myth" is actually a positive outcome in view of our goal to write an accurate and verifiable encyclopedia. Huzzah! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Nefariousski, which part of my remarks are inflammatory exactly? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The question at hand isn't one of "truth" since there is no doubt that this article will ever state that the story in Genesis is undenyably false (that's not the intent of the article). In fact the article shouldn't make any judgement regarding whether this particular (or any) Creation Myth is true or false. I just don't want this to turn into a proxy debate for evolution v. creationism since those articles do the job just fine on their own. The goal here is trying to reason with everyone to gain consensus that accurately describes the story in Genesis by its proper term as a Creation Myth and further polarizing the debate only pushes us further from that goal. Nefariousski (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the lack of scientific support for this particular creation myth is incidental to the article itself, the fact that the unintended consequence that those opposed to calling this story a "creation myth" are citing is actually in line with the self-same lack of scientific support should be viewed as a positive feature rather than a problem. I'm actually proposing that the people arguing against you are in fact giving another argument supporting plain language description of this story as a creation myth. I don't think that this is particularly inflammatory. Though I will admit that some people find facts to be upsetting, I don't think that pointing out those facts is inflammatory. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for being less than clear. I personally don't find your words inflammatory but I guarantee that there are those who will only further intrench and drag this out because they do. Furthermore we've done a good job of holding true to WP:RNPOV by expressly not making a judgement or veracity call one way or the other regarding this or any other Creation Myth and classifying them all the same as opposed to on their individual merits. Nefariousski (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean "no chance" instead of "no doubt"? Just checkin.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 23:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I do not read WP:RNPOV as saying that we should not make any judgment or veracity call in Wikipedia. In fact, treating any topic that ways flies in the face of neutrality (see WP:ASF). I do, however, agree that the simple fact that the literal account outlined in the mythology of Genesis is contradicted by scientific evidence is not all that relevant to an article trying to describe the mythology of Genesis since the intention of the ancient authors and many, if not a significant majority, of the religious adherents was/is not to align their account of creation mythology to modern scientific evidence. It seems to me that those arguing against a plain categorical statement that this topic is a creation myth are arguing from the perspective of a "protected belief" in the literal veracity of the account since we often use the term "myth" in a colloquial sense to distinguish empirical reality from imaginative storytelling. But that's just it, the very protected belief that these people are arguing we must consider is itself contradicted by plain facts. Thus, we have a very problematic current version of the lede using a completely indefensible particular attribution of the term "creation myth" to "scholars" when, in fact, there are no reliable sources on the subject of Genesis 1 and 2 contradicting that categorization. While the article itself may not necessarily touch on the veracity or lack thereof associated with particular features of these myths, to point out that the stories are false is simply another data point in the discussion and shouldn't be avoided just because some wrong-headed editor might become "entrenched" in an indefensible editorial position. Either we're writing a serious encyclopedia or we're not. I'm not going to pussyfoot around uncomfortable facts just to accommodate people who believe things that can be demonstrably shown to be untrue, especially not when the fact that those beliefs are false is directly relevant to arguments the other side presents. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to create a section on the criticisms of Genesis then feel free to WP:BEBOLD and do so. The only thing I ask is that we focus on one outstanding issue at a time and not muddy the waters. Seemingly simple logical arguements are confounding some of our editors here and they're taking offense where absolutely none exists. I'm not advocating pussyfooting around or placating anyone but on the other hand consensus is the cost of doing business around these parts and there's no IQ test or other prerequisite requirement that has to be passed before taking part in building said consensus so lets keep this simple, linear and deal with one outstanding issue at a time before moving on to more. Nefariousski (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with criticism sections as a general rule. The waters, in my opinion, have been muddied by people trying to accommodate people who have demonstrable agendas which run counter to the goal of writing a verifiable, neutral, and well-sourced encyclopedia. Look at it this way: a bunch of editors are complaining that calling Genesis a "creation myth" without particular attribution might make readers think that Wikipedia is asserting that the literal account of Genesis is not true. The question I have is, "why is that a bad thing?" I'm not saying that this is automatically the interpretation one must take, but even considering these opponents at their word leads us to outcomes that we should be happy to have at a reliable, verifiable, and neutral encyclopedia like Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Trust me on this one, there has been no accomodation, the edits to the current language were completely unilateral just prior to page protection. Nefariousski (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating discussion. By the way, my simple mind has a problem digesting the Wikipedia article on Falsifiability which relates to here in the context of your esteemed use of the words "true" and "false" in a two valued sense. And being an ignoramus, I also need help in cleaning up this article on Indeterminacy, which other esteemed scientific colleagues here have previously spelled as undeteminacy - but what do I know. Any help in clarifying things for my simple mind will be appreciated, since I still seem to have a problem here. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A creation myth is by definition unfalsifiable. Science doesn't enter into it at all. So this is a pointless digression. Auntie E. (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Amen and thank you. History2007 (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As a means for clarification for History2007, if someone says, "the Moon was formed after the Earth's oceans", that statement is false. If someone says, "the Earth's oceans formed after the Moon", that statement is true. Creation myths as a concept are unfalsifiable since the truth-value of the myth is not necessarily the interpretive value of the story. However, many literal statements about about natural history derived from this creation myth are false. There is no debate in the reliable sources over this fact. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am not as dumb as I would like to be. I know all that. History2007 (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Then I guess you are now convinced that since there are giant aspects of the story which are prima facie false, we shouldn't worry about readers coming away from the article with that impression. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RNPOV very specifically states that we aren't to worry about people mistaking the formal meaning of a word for its colloquial meaning, so even outside the science argument, you are right the hell on. --King Öomie 19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist raises a really good point. A creation myth has no truth value, but in the event a reader comes to this article and interprets the term creation myth as assigning a scientific truth value to the claims made in the myth, well, this interpretation is unintended, but it is still correct. Why worry about the unintended interpretation then unless you're trying to hide an scientifically obvious fact? Ben (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Would that be "a scientific fact" or "an scientific" fact? But, logically speaking, it does have a truth value, although said value may not be in the set {true, false}. But don't let me get started on Multi-valued logic now... I could write predicates for ever... As an aside, the value it gets does not need to come from a three valued logic and just be "unknown" for there are multiple shades of decidability, indeterminacy, etc...., If you like, after all this is done, I can provide a correspondence course in formal logic for those interested.... But the long and short of it is: Auntie is right. Let us drop this. History2007 (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not feasible to scientifically disprove an unscientific, unfalsifiable claim. Thus, such ventures are fruitless. Nevertheless, the current weight of scientific evidence and thought stands diametrically opposed to the notion of a supernatural creator of ANY religion. --King Öomie 02:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the right word would be "possible" rather than feasible, given the rest of your sentence. History2007 (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There's functionally no difference, unless you're of the opinion that the latter word grants more credibility to the religious standpoint (an opinion I soundly and firmly reject). --King Öomie 06:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually your majesty, they are not equivalent, in that "not feasible" includes the possibility of being possible, while "not possible" excludes the possibility of being feasible. And I think you meant "no functional difference" in the above since again, as I pointed out before, the use of an adverbs there was less than proper. By the way, is functional difference a new linguistic construct I need to learn about? Or did you mean "semantically equivalent"? Thank you and Long Live the King. History2007 (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing indeterminate about the fact, for example, that the Moon formed before the oceans. If people come away from this article thinking that the order of creation as described in the first few verses of Genesis is not true (which, I agree, is not the same thing as false, but then, the truth-value for a myth is actually "not true" rather than "false") then we've done them no disservice. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the calculus of multi-valued truth values does not work that way. You are still thinking in a two valued format..... I guess the details will have to be provided later in my correspondence course on formal logic mentioned above..... Or you could read a book about it beforehand.... History2007 (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Your red herring about "multi-valued truth values" (which surely wins an award from the Department of Redundancy Department) does not have any bearing on the facts I pointed out. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The unfalsifiable claim I refer to is the notion of a supernatural being creating the heavens and earth over a period of a week. Obviously the specifics are open to scientific interpretation. --King Öomie 06:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

In a dumb Omphalos hypothesis sense, I guess that claim is unfalsifiable. But it certainly violates Ockham's razor, or, at the very least, is a Russell's teapot idealization that can be dismissed as a fairy tale in any case. Of course, there is plenty of scientific evidence that the heaven and earth did not come into existence over the period of a week. In that sense, the hypothesis can be falsified. But this is pure digression at this point. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the evidence for the cosmos not having been created in a week can be dismissed using the same mechanisms with which all conspiracy theories dismiss facts. We only need to assume that an omnipotent being planted fake evidence to confuse us. (Sorry, I couldn't refrain from adding to this digression.) Hans Adler 23:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the point of Omphalos, certainly. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that a "God did it to test our faith", "The devil did it to tempt us", or a "God works in mysterious ways"? I never could understand which canned rebuttal applied where. Nefariousski (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Philip Henry Gosse, it seems, thought that the natural world just worked better with the appearance of age. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A myth is not "untrue", a myth is a myth. Falsehood only begins to creep in when misguided individuals try to defend a myth as an account aiming at factuality. A myth states what is "true" as opposed to the merely factual. If you believe truth and factuality are the same, you should perhaps read the truth article. Truth is an innate human emotional or moral judgement. Factuality is the materialist attempt to detach the exterior world from emotional and moral judgement. You cannot blame a bit of Iron Age Hebrew mythology for the stupidity of some modern interpreters, the Iron Age mythological text remains what it is, an Iron Age mythological text. --dab (𒁳) 10:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

^This. Science-minded individuals had little interest in arguing against religious stories before their supporters began to shoehorn the religion into the science. --King Öomie 13:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are some 'popular' definitions of 'myth' according to Google and Bing:

• an unproved or false collective belief
• any invented story
• an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
• fiction, fantasy, talltale
• e.g., urban myth

It surely is incorrect to say A myth is not "untrue". Some reasons why labeling a Bible passage that way without defining "myth" is so offensive to those for whom the Bible is sacred (like me). As a scientist and as a follower of Jesus Christ, I've never found the two incompatible. There are many interpretations of Genesis 1-2 besides literal.

Sadly, some who make such a sport out of guffawing a Creator God and his son Jesus Christ (who believed the Genesis Creation account) may find it a bit awkward to meet their Maker in a time of judgment. That's certainly a time one cannot say, "Get outta my way. YOU didn't make ME!" Even if you don't believe in and honor/respect the Creator God, why work so hard to offend those who do? Let's don't play games: that is what is going on here. In this life, it's each person's human right to decide for themselves what they believe. It's really sad when scoffers, some in the name of being "apologists," are so uncouth in making fun of believers, their personal faith, their Creator, and their Bible.

To label the Creation narratives "myth" without explanation is essentially saying the whole Bible is "myth," because the Genesis narratives are reaffirmed throughout the entire Bible—both Old and New Testaments. Just for the record, they are affirmed by Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew19:4 and Mark,10:6. Was he delusional? Those narratives are also affirmed in Gen 14:19; 14:22; Deut 32:6; Eccl 12:1; Isaiah 27:11, 40:28, 43:15; Rom 1:25; Col 3:10; 1 Pet 4:19, and others. —AFAprof01 (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

How about you try the exact same search with "Creation Myth" and come back to us with the definitions and citiations... Nobody is using the stand alone word "myth". Nor are we using it out of context or in a way that patently leads people to belive we're using it informally. Feel free to read my "The Electoral College is not an institute of higher learning just because it contains the word College" arguement above. Proper nouns have distinct definitions apart from their component nouns. As a "Scientist" I would expect you to understand that concept.

I seriously doubt "Divine Retribution" is a valid arguement against using the phrase Creation Myth. This is not the place to preach. You'll have much better luck here. Nefariousski (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually Afaprof, I think you are not going to get people on the other side of the table to change their minds by quoting from the New Testament. As for "why work so hard" they all have different reasons, but given that people are so passionate about it on both sides of the table means that the reasons are deeply buried in the respective mindsets and are unlikely to change. History2007 (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What is actually being disputed here?

First off, does anyone here actually dispute the fact that contained within the first part of Genesis is a "creation myth" as formally defined? I'd like a show of hands. As far as I can see, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this is an established fact not in dispute. Auntie E. (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Auntie E.I do not object to "creation myth" being in the article—provided (a) that it is not placed in such a prominent place as the 3rd/4th words after the title; and (b) some explanation of what "creation myth" means as a literary genre, rather than allowing an assumption or suggestion that the use of "myth" implies a fantasy or fable. I've attempted to do that in my proposed first paragraph. —AFAprof01 (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How is this creation myth not a fantasy or a fable exactly? Please provide a reliable source which shows that creation as accounted in Genesis is not a fantasy or fable. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• I propose a trade: 7 suggestions for a lead paragraph, then I will say what I think. That is a promise. History2007 (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Say what you think? Have you been holding back? --King Öomie 02:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Roll up folks. Not enough choices added to the List_of_suggested_paragraphs yet! ^rossnixon 01:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• History2007, please, this is a serious conversation. Your sarcasm and cutesy terms in referring to others seem designed to provoke, and it's becoming difficult to take you seriously. Do you honestly wish for me to make seven suggestions for a lead sentence before you even tell me what you consider the facts to be? Really? I did add one proposed lead sentence which I thought I had added before (but didn't), with commentary. If you object, please tell me why, but in a straight man style. Auntie E. (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• I was not asking you for 7 suggestions Auntie, but asked the general public, namely the 20,000 people a month who click on this page.[21] And it did help generate more suggestions. As for my being lectured on being cutesy, is it not unfair that you do not lecture those who use words like fool, crazy people and voodoo? That might suggest that you prefer some nephews to others. Is that not the definition of Nepotism in fact? In any case, thanks for making a suggestion. My initial proposed trade now just needs 3 more suggestions. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(sorta off topic) That's not exactly 20k people per month – only that many visits. Also, by your reckoning, one could argue that only 2,000 people have actually been to this page this month (and even less the month before).[22]
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 04:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sure, I agree with your statement. Ben (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree wholeheartedly. --King Öomie 02:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• King agrees with Ben? I am in shock! History2007 (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• What point does this remark have? Please see disruptive editor and decide whether you fit the bill, History2007. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• ^This. I'm sick of it, History2007. Ben and I agree because we've both read and understood the policy. Perhaps you can join us? --King Öomie 04:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is this an invitation for me to join the team of "Ben and the King"? Alas, I think we have fundamental differences on your use of adverbs to modify nouns (as pointed out in the posts above), so I would probably not fit into your team. Add to that my differing views on muli-valued truth values discussed above and I doubt we could have a fit. But I do thank you, your majesty, and Long Live the King. History2007 (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'll ask you to stop nit-picking my writing style. We aren't on terms anywhere NEAR good enough for me not to take that as harassment. --King Öomie 19:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest a way forward? Everybody agrees that Genesis is a "creation myth" (at least when careful to note the word's non-colloquial meaning). Afaprof01, History007, et al. disagree with using the term creation myth in the lead without commentary, but they don't disagree with the appropriateness of the word itself as a description of the article subject. Given that, I see a handful of ways in which this debate might (realistically) end:

1. Describing Genesis as a creation myth in the lead, with no further commentary (other than a wikilink). This seems to result in perennial edit-wars.
2. Describing Genesis as a creation myth in the lead, with an explanation of the meaning of "creation myth" provided in a footnote. I suggested this above, but my suggestion did not seem to have met wide acceptance.
3. Describing Genesis as a creation myth in the lead, with an in-line explanation of the meaning of "creation myth".

The latter has been suggested by Auntie E and Nefariousski above. I know that Afaprof01/History007/etc. would prefer to have the article not use the word "creation myth" in the lead at all, but I think that is an unrealistic ambition. I believe they could agree with #3, depending on how the in-line explanation is phrased. Similarly, ScienceApologist, I know that you think #1 is a good idea, I assume you're OK with #2 as well. But would #3 be acceptable with you, per WP:JARGON?

If so, then this discussion is really about how to provide the in-line explanation of the term "creation myth" without bloating the lead. Gabbe (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Gabbe, I do not know about AfaProf's preference but what I wonder is "why the lead has to be so telegraphic". Is there a shortage of keystrokes to expand it? Given the extreme brevity of this talk page, maybe... But more seriously, why can there be no statement in the lead that says what Jews and Christians have taught for centuries? That is a well referenced fact and clearly relevant to the book. Jewish and Christian "teachings" have included specific items about the Book of Genesis. The words to express that can be selected later, but why can there be no mention of that in the telegram, excuse me, I mean the lead? Would you like to make a suggestion to that effect Gabbe in the list above? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You ask "why can there be no statement in the lead that says what Jews and Christians have taught for centuries?" Short answer is: Depending on what you mean by "what Jews and Christians have taught", that viewpoint might not be notable enough to warrant mention in this article's lead section. Gabbe (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with including an explanation of the term "creation myth", so long as it's short, unobtrusive and subtle. Making sure we don't offend creationist readers unnecessarily is OK. Doing it in an obvious way is not OK because it would give undue weight to creationism (and thereby offend readers who are not creationists). To quote from WP:UNDUE:

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject."

The subject in this case is the biblical creation myth as a text. Creationism is significant enough in this context to get its own section, but not enough to shape the first lead of the article in any significant way other than by its being mentioned. Hans Adler 08:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually Hans, I was not referring to the modern concept of creationism as defined in Wikipedia. I was referring to centuries of Jewish and Christian "teachings" before creationism became well defined as a "side" in the debate against science. Creationism seems to include specific rejections of biology etc. while said teachings existed before biology was defined as a branch of science. History2007 (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is it relevant that these "teachings" that you vaguely refer to predate biology as a branch of science? Gabbe (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the fact that until some time in the 19th century most western scientists took the biblical creation myth for granted as a historical account. This is just one of countless misconceptions that were once current in the academic community and have been revised. These obsolete misconceptions don't shape how reliable sources write about these subjects now, and they don't shape how Wikipedia writes about these subjects. E.g. the anachronistic proponents of humorism have no influence at all on the lead of myocardial infarction, as you can easily verify. Hans Adler 09:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

History2007 refers to the medieval scholarly mainstream. Medieval scholarship is indeed a venerable encyclopedic topic in its own right, but Wikipedia does not accept medieval scholarship as expert opinion to be juxtaposed controversially with modern scholarship. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually dab my goal was not to encourage medieval scholarship, but to reduce the "contempt for religion" tone that permeates this talk page (e.g. via the use of words and phrases such as "crazy people", "voodoo", "nonsense", etc.) The Captain & Tennille team has used the word "fool" to refer to a humble soul like myself more than once, and the local representative of the German state seems to like the word "crazy people". This has then been reflected in the attempts to craft a lead that in the name of scholarship denigrates the Book of Genesis. The decorative reasoning provided quotes science, policy, etc. They have not used global warning as an excuse yet, but give them time.... But the tone is unmistakable. If you have a solution, please make a suggestion in the list of suggested paragraphs above. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop blanking the default section-linked edit summary when you post. This page is close 150k- it's extremely inconvenient to not even be able to tell what SECTION you're posting in. I brought this up on your talk page, but you opted instead to blank the section with no response. --King Öomie 15:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Correction- closer to 250k. --King Öomie 15:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

To your comment: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Creation Myth is NOT a value judgement, so there is NO 'denigration'. The issue here is that you're intent on replacing a neutral value-statement with a POSITIVE one, in the name of "npov". Kind of reminds me of the attitude over at Conservapedia- if it doesn't actively promote Jesus, it might as well be satanism. --King Öomie 15:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

it may imply a value judgement. As in, a high value, as opposed to, say, "Creation according to Genesis is an item of US Bible Belt folklore". --dab (𒁳) 20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

to History2007, you appear to think that the current lead section "denigrates the Book of Genesis". If you wish us to take this for anything other than an idle personal sentiment, please substantiate this opinion, preferably based on quotable sources. In my opinion, the 25 centuries old Hebrew text is denigrated by people who attempt to abuse it for petty squabbles of religious ideology of the 21st century. This is a venerable, encyclopedic piece of Iron Age literature and I resent the attempt to smuggle items of current affairs into its discussion. --dab (𒁳) 20:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see my suggestion above that allows your third suggestion to happen in a stylistically reasonable way. Cheers, Ben (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What is actually agreed upon here?

Nef made a good comment above that made me think of the positive version of the section above. Namely, what is actually agreed upon here. I see a few items, and please suggest others. Wordings are secondary here, so those can change later:

• This article is about the the text found in the first two chapters of a specific book. I think that is obviously true. That book is Genesis.

• Most (if not almost all) modern scholars label it with the technical term "creation myth". I think that is not 100% agreed upon, but is probably true (although I have not done a survey of all scholars) and is certainly well referenced.

• Several people have agreed to include a definition of "creation myth" along with a hyperlink.

• As Auntie first stated and many others agreed thereafter, creation myths are in general not falsifiable. That is logically true and also agreed upon above.

• Some IP will come out of nowhere in 18 months and change a lot of this anyway.

Are there other items here that are generally agreed upon? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• People other than scholars label this story as a creation myth as well including some people who profess belief in the story.

• Commentators generally acknowledge that there are two distinct myths that can be distinguished from close analysis of the ancient Hebrew text.

• There are parallels and distinctions that can be made between this creation myth and others written in similar time periods in nearby locations.

• Certain claims derived from literal interpretations of the text (for example, the claim that the oceans were formed before the Moon) are directly contradicted by scientific evidence. However, this fact may not necessarily be relevant to the lead section.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to think that after all this time, it can be agreed upon that the term creation myth (wherever it first appears in the lead paragraph) can stand unqualified (so long as it is wikilinked). Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should make it clear that I meant "what has been agreed upon here so far". So whatever may be debated and agreed upon separately in the future is another issue. E.g. I am not sure oceans have been discussed at length here. I am trying to make a list of items that already have consensus among those debating here. I still see these items as the ones I started with. Are there any others that have clear consensus among the editors here? History2007 (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have issues with any of the statements I think are uncontroversial and I think generally have consensus, please let them be known. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you agree with them. According to our consensus ideals, it is not necessary to have an endless debate to establish consensus. Some proposals are simply things that are uncontroversial enough that the consensus of reasonable editors is to agree with them. I believe my proposed additions to the list are perfectly fine in that regard and I submit they all represent clear and unambiguous consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I did not see any items that "I" would call error prone in most of your list Apologist, but I do not see some of them discussed here. But I do see some of your items as diving into way too much detail right now. My goal was to come up with a list of top level items which would form the basis of a consensus. Adding detail will make the debate go into 2012. History2007 (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is nothing you disagree with in my list, then I think we're okay. Let's wait for someone to object for real rather than just as a hypothetical exercise. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not rubber stamp it, but as I said it has too much detail, and there are a couple of things I do not agree on, but not big deals. History2007 (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, if you're not willing to point out the specific details with which you disagree, then there is no actionable objection to the list and we have consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Whether you call this a "creation myth" has nothing to do with whether you are a Christian or Jew, but whether you happen to understand the concept of creation myth. The people driving this "discussion" consistently fail to make clear what they think is the problem. The current reading of the lead, "This text is regarded as a religious account of creation by Christians and Jews and as a creation myth by scholars" is utter nonsense and flies in the face of the established revision. Everybody considers this "a religious account of creation", that is what a creation myth is for crying out loud. The suggestion that there is a dichotomy between Christians and Jews on one hand and scholars on the other is uttrerly ridiculous. The implication being that you cannot be educated and religious at the same time. The suggestion that there is a dichotomy between "religious account of creation" and "creation myth" is even more ridiculous. This entire exercise is a disgrace. --dab (𒁳) 12:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Unprotecting?

Reading through the last week of text on this page there doesn't really seem to be much of an actual debate. I doubt four more days of discussion will bring forth any new arguments, so I recommend unprotecting the article per WP:NOTUNANIMITY. Everyone has had a chance to state their opinion. Gabbe (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It will quickly lead into a revert cycle that is best avoided. One may say, "so let them get blocked", but inciting revert cycles is not a good idea. History2007 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure neverending discussions are such a good idea either. Sure, it stops the edit war for the time being, but if people are using that time to grandstand, name-call, etc. instead of actually debating, the protection has lost its purpose. Gabbe (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I may be simplistic, but I have a feeling that "list making" as suggested above will lead to consensus sooner rather than later. And that may buy stability for 12-18 months or so. I have not seen major additions to "the agreed upon list" so far. Can you see other items? History2007 (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. What do you mean by "major additions to 'the agreed upon list'"? Is it this list you're refering to? I count seven suggestions there. Gabbe (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant Talk:Creation_according_to_Genesis#What_is_actually_agreed_upon_here as well as the first one. In fact, within the first list a pattern is gradually emerging in that the term Creation myth is both used and defined, with the definition to be decided upon. The remaining issue seems to be what impacts the reader first, i.e. does the reader see the word myth first or sees that this article is about the first two chapters of a book. Although the two forms may be semantically equivalent under conjunction, the impact on the reader is different, and that is where the difference lies. If that issue is resolved and other items from list2 are stable and can be added, then there may be consensus.History2007 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is, if you disregard Afaprof01's comments as well as the name-calling, etc. what you find above is just a lot of people agreeing, there doesn't seem to be much of a dispute at all. If there are editors willing to edit war but unwilling to discuss it on this page then those people not only can but should be blocked. Per WP:NOTUNANIMITY, there can be a consensus without unanimity. If there is a consensus then the article shouldn't be protected. Among people actually on this talk page, there appears to be a consensus that it is proper to label the article's subject a "creation myth". I doubt (barring an instance of canvassing) that this will change in the four days left of protection. Gabbe (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

this article belongs unprotected and reverted to the status quo ante, i.e. before the silly games started in December. From this point on, it's WP:BRD. --dab (𒁳) 12:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (as a way to resolve every reasonable concern)

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: Page moved to Genesis creation myth. Ucucha 16:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Creation according to Genesis → Biblical creation myth — A quick Google scholar search shows this term is the more common method to refer to this article's subject (151 vs. 120 hits, not mention an additional 72 hits for "Genesis creation myth"). This also has the benefit of bringing this article into line with other similar articles of ours, Sumerian creation myth, Chinese creation myth, etc, and again not to mention to countless "X mythology" articles that give an overview of a creation myth as part of the article. It is also perfectly in line with our WP:RNPOV policy and WP:WTA#Myth_and_legend guideline. But perhaps the biggest benefit for everyone here is that it allows us to completely resolve the above issues, namely, the complete disambiguation of the term creation myth in the lead sentence to everyone's satisfaction without resorting to a parenthetical or explanatory footnote to do so.

The biblical creation myth (or Genesis creation myth) is the (some favoured expansion of the term creation myth here) contained in the first two chapters of the first book of the Hebrew bible, the Book of Genesis.

Considering most of the suggestions for a new lead above already attempt to disambiguate creation myth, filing in the above parenthetical should be something everyone here can work on together to each others satisfaction and with some editorial style. Is this a reasonable way forward? Does this solve all of the above concerns? Or am I missing something? Cheers, —Ben (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Biblical creation myth is arguable, as the term will mostly refer to Genesis. But it is important to note that the bible has passages pertaining to creation also outside of Genesis. This includes various allusions to cosmology in Psalms and other parts of the OT, as well as some passages in the NT, especially the beginning of John. Fwiiw, I see nothing wrong with the current title. --dab (𒁳) 12:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• The suggestion is a non-starter and can not work at all since the New Testament also refers to creation, so lumping the Jewish views with the purely Christian views is not possible. In any case, suggestion should be discussed after the resolution of current debate, for it will even lengthen the debate. My prediction: suggestion will fail anyway after much wasted time. History2007 (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you sketch out the main differences between the Christian creation myth and the Jewish creation myth? I was not aware of any distinction between them. Gabbe (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In a variety of Christian theologies, the second and third persons of the Trinity play important roles in creation. This is obviously not the case for Jewish theology. Creation theology that relies on such ideas often focuses on the first chapter of the book of John. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is right. And in fact reminds me of a topic for later attention, namely art. The art in this article needs help, and one of the items not shown is that well into the 14th century Jesus was depicted creating the world within Christian Bibles, given the assumed restrictions of Exodus 33:20 and John 1:18. But that is another issue. History2007 (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify at this point: if a reader wanted an overview of creation from a Christian theology perspective, which article should give them that? Ben (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We used to have an article entitled Creation (theology), but it attracted too much cruft and was deleted. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a section on New Testament or Christian only perspectives or something like that may be added. If people are not clear here on this, that means the article needs help. I am personally not that clear on all the differences anyway, so it will help me too. History2007 (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, is it reasonable to say that an article renaming is going to make it a lot easier to talk about the details mentioned in this section? The opening chapters of Genesis are a great influence when it comes to Judeo-Christian thought on creation, but the fact that there are passages related to creation and that these too have influenced thought on creation should be mentioned. If we widen the scope of this article just a bit, then with this article acting as a top-level article on Judeo-Christian thought on creation we are easily able to fork off information into sub-articles as the need arises. I think this strategy is preferable to trying to build multiple articles in parallel (creation (theology) for instance) that necessarily have significant overlap. Cheers, Ben (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support the following move: Creation according to Genesis → Genesis creation myth. Biblical is way too broad a term for this article. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

with the opening sentence being: The Genesis creation myth is a narrative found in the first two chapters of the Hebrew Bible, describing the origins of the universe and life from a Judeo-Christian perspective. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Question: does anyone have any arguments why we should title this article in a fundamentally different manner from the way other articles in Category:Creation myths are titled? I mean, apart from the fact that the adherents of Genesis are more numerous than the adherents of Völuspá. Gabbe (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Apart from the base argument against it pointed out above by Dab, Apologist and myself that it is "flatly inconsistent" from a theological view anyway, you have correctly observed that it is also a totally inconsistent naming convention. From a cynical perspective, which of course none of us here is an adherent of, that would telegraph the word myth much sooner to the reader. But I am absolutely sure that Ben has no intention of doing that, of course. History2007 (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any of what you just wrote makes sense, but I will defend myself. If it was simply my intention to force a term down peoples throats without clarification, against what you and Afaprof01 want, then leaving the article title as is better serves that purpose. That is not my intention, but I do want this article to be consistent with our other articles, our policies and guidelines, and by extension relevant reliable sources. I do think that if the article was renamed we both get what we want, and I have explained this above. Cheers, Ben (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I did say it was not your intention, of course. History2007 (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly? It seems obvious to me that was what you were implying, albeit in a sardonic kind of way. Gabbe (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are other creation accounts in the Bible - Job, Proverbs, Isaiah, Psalms, etc. Plus, it doesn't seem that the move is ideologically neutral. StAnselm (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Your first concern would be assuaged by using the term "Genesis creation myth", would it not? By your second concern, do you mean to say that you're assuming bad faith? Gabbe (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Yes. 2) Not at all - but the term "myth" carries all sorts of baggage. It would be a move from a more neutral-sounding title to a less neutral-sounding one. StAnselm (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with St Anselm. And again, it is also a non standard naming convention, as above. But dear saint, be prepared for long debates on this page, and as a friendly piece of advice, please recall what Dante said: Abandon hope, all ye who enter here. Neutral has many meanings on this page. History2007 (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

StAnselm: You're saying it would be in the interest of neutrality to have articles titled Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Mesoamerican creation myths, Earth-maker myth, Pelasgian creation myth and Sumerian creation myth, but not an article titled "Genesis creation myth"? Gabbe (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support Genesis creation myth instead of biblical creation myth per the above notes. Cheers, Ben (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2010 (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.

Current agreements/options and move to consensus

It seems that now the differing views have been expressed in multiple forms in this list and a set of stable elements has emerged from which a consensus may be crafted. There are 8 suggested leading paragraphs now and they overlap enough that they just leave 2 main options with a secondary variation as follows.

First, the agreements:

• Agreement1: Everyone agrees (reluctantly or otherwise) with the use of the term creation myth. There is no longer the need for "any debate" on that.

• Agreement2: Everyone agrees that this article is about (or refers to, etc.) the Book of Genesis. There is no longer the need for "any debate" on that.

Next, the variations:

• Option1: The lead first mentions the term creation myth, then the Book of Genesis.

• Option2: The lead first mentions the Book of Genesis, then the term creation myth.

Next, the definition variation:

• Some people prefer a definition of the term creation myth within the lead, others prefer not to have it.

There seems to be some support for a discussion of Jewish/Christian views, although most editors here seem to prefer to skip that.

To a newcomer to the scene this would look very close to consensus and further debate would be much ado about nothing. I think the key issue is the selection of Option1 vs Option2. Technically, these are semantically equivalent, i.e. "A and B" is the same as "B and A". But I think people on different sides of the table will argue for Option 1 vs Option2 based on the impact on the reader in that seeing the word creation myth first may have a different effect than seeing it later. But apart from wording that seems to be the only point of contention. If that issue can be resolved, then there is consensus.

Furthermore, some of the items from the second list of "agreed upon items" may find their way into the top section, and in fact "give and take" on that will probably lead to consensus. Comments will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

History2007, this is a very well-done analysis and systhesis. I for one appreciate it. —AFAprof01 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I think the correct thing to do is revert back to the version that this page had before the December edit wars and then move forward with proposed revisions rather than trying to decie between different options. That's the easiest way forward. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That would almost certainly restart the February edit wars. Why avoid a discussion of consensus? History2007 (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

After your warring to the current revision, and subsequent protection request, I find your protest disingenuous. --King Öomie 14:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have only done 3 edits to this article ever, one of which was a typo fix. So I have edited this article only twice, a few days apart. But I would like to add art later. History2007 (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We can ask an administrator to enforce an article parole on this page to prevent the edit wars. It shouldn't be too hard. I really encourage rolling back to the last stable version and moving forward slowly. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so you have made your preference clear. Let us see why anyone else wants or does not want to achieve or discuss consensus. History2007 (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion can continue, but in the absence of the threat of an edit war, this page shouldn't be full-protected. I'd suggest downgrading to semi-protection. --King Öomie 15:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Apart from ScienceApologist, the suggestion to unprotect is put forward by Dbachmann (talk · contribs) and myself above. For what it's worth, he and I are both administrators, though I'm unsure whether everyone here would count us as "uninvolved" considering we've been discussing here on this talk page. Anyway, we could try unprotecting the page and putting it on WP:1RR for about a week or so, to see what happens. If chaos breaks out anyway, we could always protect the page again. As I've said, I'm all for consensus-building, but continuing with these endless walls of text on this talk page won't build any more consensus than we already have. Gabbe (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You've been fairly impartial. dab has spoken up. Personally, as long as they're backed by policy, I don't care how involved an admin is when they take action. Obviously there are exceptions, like wikistalking to find an excuse to block someone they disagree with. Alright, so, backed by policy and abiding by WP:DICK :P --King Öomie 15:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I was the editor who originally complained about the edit warring and 3RR violation here, which resulted in the current page protection. I'd support unprotect and 1RR at this point. I'm also an admin, but I've been active in the talk page discussion. Since unprotected is the preferred stautus and 1RR is still quite restrictive, I think it would be acceptable for one of you to make the change after notifying the original admin who protected the page.--agr (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Additionally I'd like to ask that we consider adding a FAQ box to the top of this talk page So that we don't end up having to rehash this whole discussion every couple of weeks when a new group of editors come across the page. Nefariousski (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

An ounce of prevention, certainly- but as I said above, it would likely not have much of an affect. WT:SIG is a testament to people ignoring the hell out of edit notices- and people will ignore just about anything to stay offended when religion is in play. Nonetheless, draft it and post it, you'll receive no complaint from me. --King Öomie 17:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not assuming it's going to quell anyone's feelings of righteous indignation. I'd just rather have it available so when responding to tired arguements editors can just post "Read the FAQ, section blah blah blah". Not to mention those more biblically learned cound contribute to the FAQ regarding the actual topic of Genesis so that the FAQ could benefit those actually coming to this article to read about the Creation Myth and it's various interpretations and messages. Nefariousski (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with reverting the article backward to anything. Let's work with what we have.

Recommend that we do not remove protection until we have selected a single paragraph which a clear majority accept. It's unlikely that unanimity is possible. Then, let's ask an uninvolved SysOp to substitute that paragraph in the article and then change to semi-protection (registered users only). —AFAprof01 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the AfaProf strategy. Going backwards would only result in an attempt to remake an online version of Back to the Future. I think there have been enough remakes of that movie. History2007 (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"What we have" is a logic rubiks cube. Let's NOT work with that. Either you read it, understand the meaning and become confused as to why anyone would phrase it that way, or you DON'T understand they're the same and get the wrong impression of religious people, scholars, or both.

"A bicycle, known to riders as a two-wheeled transportation device^[1][2][3], and to engineers as a transportation device with two wheels^[4][5][6][7], is a self-propelled vehicle utilizing two wheels for locomotion^[8]." Yes, surely this is the best starting point. --King Öomie 19:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We can't give Undue weight to terms or phrases that don't have formal definitions. Colloquial terms used by a single group of people don't warrant equal footing to broadly used formal academic terms. We don't put the word "Jesus Horse" in the article about Dinosaurs just because some people believe that Dinosaurs existed along side mankind[23] and are offended at stating the fact that they went extinct millions of years before mankind came to be[24]. Nefariousski (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• A revision of earlier #2, taking into account some suggestions and criticism:

2 Creation according to Genesis refers to the account of creation found in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. Scholars frequently refer it by its literary genre, creation myth—a neutral term that takes no position on accuracy or inspiration. Jews and Christians in varying degrees esteem the text as religious authority while interpreting it in a wide variety of ways. —AFAprof01 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, 'myth' to some implies inaccuracy and uninspired by a divinity. The literal—allegorical controversy among adherents represents a huge chasm. IMO, we are doing a great service to the large remainder of the article to make it "perfectly clear" (with apologies to R. Nixon) that the article is committed to neutrality, that myth doesn't imply real or imaginary, that the article takes no position on the wide range of interpretations of the passage. Hopefully, then, it will be accepted without defensiveness on anyone's part. The fact that we (collectively) have worked VERY hard to desensitize the lede is "proof pudding" that we editors are committed to go out of our way, when necessary, to "stick to just the facts" (another apology to the original Dragnet).

PERSONAL NOTE: To the extent that I have offended some of you personally, I humbly apologize. One of my many human frailties is that when I perceive personal attack, I get defensive. That's not appropriate here. I sincerely regret my errors. —AFAprof01 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"As has been pointed out, 'myth' to some implies inaccuracy and uninspired by a divinity."

WP:RNPOV makes it clear that we are to completely ignore this. As a general request to you, Bugs, History, Til, etc, PLEASE stop bringing this issue up. A wikilink should be sufficient to point confused readers on their way- your inline definition (or disclaimer, from the look of it) is superfluous. To wit, WP:NDA. --King Öomie 20:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In my view, the fact that the current debate has this form simply confirms that going backwards will be an attempt to remake Back to the Future. And I think that will then start a secondary debate on who will play Marty McFly, and that will also be a long debate. So we should try to resolve things now. History2007 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a resolution- change it back to the way it was before this mess started, because the complaints of those involved are entirely unfounded. To continue your analogy, this is the equivalent of four editors becoming VERY incensed that Marty McFly doesn't make it clear the character was played by Martin Sheen- and attempting to reach a compromise in which the lede states that Michael J Fox quite resembles Martin Sheen, but is in fact a different person. (At least one, and possibly two of those editors are still convinced that Mr. Sheen played the character, but they have tired of the debate). --King Öomie 20:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus proposal (moving forward)

I submit that there is a consensus to remove protection, revert back to this version, and proceed slowly with 1RR and [{WP:BRD]]. I submit that User:Dbachman, User:Gabbe, User:Nefariousski, User:Kingoomieiii, User:Ben Tillman, User:Hans Adler, User:Aunt Entropy, and myself all agree with this idea (though I'd like to reconfirm). I submit that User:Afaprof01 and User:History2007 disagree with this approach. However, consensus is not unanimity and 8 in favor with 2 opposed is pretty good.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Not so fast - the discussion has taken place for a very short period of time and still continues. History2007 (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We can continue to discuss even while we remove protection, revert, institute 1RR, and follow WP:BRD. These are not mutually exclusive events, but it is clear to me you and Afaprof01 are in the minority and, sadly, sometimes the minority must get out of the way so that we can move on. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I endorse this motion with the fiery approval of a million suns. --King Öomie 21:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

King, I got from you the idea of reworking my proposed paragraph (above). I would appreciate feedback on New Option 2 before we unprotect. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Too wordy. The long 'myth' explanation could be covered by "(formally myth)" as per my suggestion option 4. ^rossnixon 01:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Prof, I bet you a nickle to a doughnut they will not buy that. History2007 (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(←) I'm not opposed. Ben (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is opposed to civil discourse and feedback on any of the proposals. Nefariousski (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just reconfirming per the first comment. Ben (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa there, are you sure that's the right version you are linking to? I'm not going to agree to a version that censors the words "creation myth". I think the clear majority find this edition closer to the mark. Auntie E. (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I second that. Although I would personally prefer one of the early January versions that doesn't have the comparison to the Koran in the second sentance since it seems a little misplaced in an intro. Nefariousski (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just echoing what dab suggested. I figured after we restored the new version we could work in new versions of the lead. I'm fine with Auntie E.'s version or with Nefariousski's version, so don't let me stand in your way! ScienceApologist (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this version, and not with this version. I would very strongly oppose the latter. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So being that pretty clear consensus has been built around what revision to start with has been established without any dissent for the past day why don't we roll back to said version already? Nefariousski (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"Oh, no! Not AFAprof01 again!" Sorry, 'tis I. I am concerned about roll back to &oldid=337109226. That's where it was before the huge debate and debacle. Although I wrote the present version, I wrote it based on what seemed to be consensual attitudes on that day. It reflects some of the thinking and compromise that came through the blood, sweat and tears. Starting with where it was before "the war" is not unlike erasing the 38th parallel. Canadian Christian theologian, apologist and author Clark Pinnock writes:

While most biblical scholars would likely advocate a literary reading of Genesis, as opposed to a literal one, the characterization of Genesis 1-3 as a “mythic” text can make some people uneasy. This is largely due to the fact that in our American culture, “myth” has become synonymous with “not true”. ...But to suggest that Genesis is both a mythic text as well as the “inerrant Word of God” may require a leap of faith for some.

— Clark Pinnock

I'm surprised that neither I nor anyone else thought to call attention to the Wiki article Christ myth theory (sometimes called the Christ myth, Jesus myth, or nonexistence hypothesis). Its lede defines it as the contention that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical person. Since there is major precedence for using the word "myth" in such a negative manner, is it little wonder that the term is so offensive to many of us? Is it so completely implausible that the word "myth" with the "Creation" prefix is prone to conjure up visions of fable, fairy story, and superstition?

Today, taking into account many of the objections and suggestions that have been raised, I would write it something like this as an amendment to my proposals:

Creation according to Genesis refers to the account of creation found in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. It is often termed a “creation myth” without implying fictionality. Jews and Christians consider the text religious authority in varying degrees, and interpretations range from figurative or metaphorical to it being reliably literal.

─AFAprof01 (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The Pinnock quotes is interesting, and in my view could be included somewhere in the article, perhaps even in the lead. The comparison between "Genesis creation myth" and "Christ myth theory" merits a lengthier response. I think the most meaningful difference is the level of acceptance among experts. While most historians are in a consensus opinion that Jesus was a historical person with an actual, literal existance (with a slight minority of the opinion that he was merely a literary character), the opinion among experts regarding the creation account in Genesis is the opposite. With Genesis, most are of the opinion that it is a not a literal account of an historical phenomenon, but a literary device meant to explain how the world came about. What I mean to say is, it would be undue weight for us to claim that Jesus did not literally exist, but it would not be undue weight to imply that Genesis is not to be read literally. The latter is not the same as saying that "Genesis is false".

The term "Christ myth theory" is used to describe the theory that Christ is a mere literary character, rather than a literally existing factual and historical individual. This theory is not widely held to be true. The term "Genesis creation myth" is used to describe an account that is widely regarded (among scientists, theologians, biblical scholars, etc.) to be more literary than literal. Gabbe (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote it based on what seemed to be consensual attitudes on that day. - Afaprof01 Laughable at best, and in more ways than one. Anyway, since ScienceApologist's original post seems consistent with the responses here, I'll put in a request that this be carried through. Cheers, Ben (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Restoration to this version and unprotection so we can move forward per the above discussion. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Version restored. For the sake of a few hours I don't think it's worth removing the protection. Please continue to discuss things on the talk page after the protection expires. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no ongoing discussion. I just see User:History2007 making coy remarks all over the place in violation of WP:TALK. We need to restore the last stable version of this article. If anybody wants to set off a bona fide discussion after that, they are certainly most welcome to do that. --dab (𒁳) 21:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• What is wrong with this version? It includes both sides, is neutral in tone and reliably referenced. Why the POV pushing for including only a "myth" lede? 140.247.38.208 (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that "creation myth" is the best wording for two reasons. First, because it is the literary genre of the work, and thus is important for the same reason that it's important that Stranger in a Strange Land is identified in the lede as as science fiction novel. And the reason I think that's important (besides clearly locating the work within its genre) is that it allows for the link to our article on Creation myths, so readers can link to similar works from other traditions- that will be very useful for readers using this article for research or curiosity. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There have been about 3 pages written so far about why it is inappropriate to split scholars and the religious on this issue, as there is no real separation. --King Öomie 21:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

First, it does not have to parallel science fiction novel. It has been pointed out many times that the characterization of Genesis 1-3 as a “mythic” text can make some people uneasy. This is largely due to the fact that in our American culture, “myth” has become synonymous with “not true,” according to theologian, apologist and author Clark Pinnock. We should have two objectives here: 1) be NPOV, 2) state facts correctly. It has been pointed out that Wiki is not seeking "truth," but "facts." What does it hurt to use a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down, à la Mary Poppins? ─AFAprof01 (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Both of your points, 1 and 2, are already satisfied. You're asking us to bias this article in favour of American culture, but that is greatly frowned upon. Ben (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In any case, 'myth' means the same thing in the US. My middle-school students have some of the same questions when I talk about creation myths, and I tell them, "a myth is a story that people somewhere, sometime, believed was true, and that tries to explain why the world is the way it is. Whether it's true or not is not even important." My 12-year-old students understand this, and so do most Christian and Jewish people- even in America. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Afaprof01: I think you are absolutely correct in that using the term "creation myth" we are bound to make some people uneasy, just like Pinnock says. And I also think Pinnock could be an appropriate and academic source for citing something in the article (perhaps even in the lead) to the effect "usage of the term myth makes some uneasy" or something more properly worded. But that is not, by itself, a sufficient justification for not using the term. WP:RNPOV (part of WP:NPOV) expliticly says 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." Gabbe (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Afa, I have, personally, just me, quoted that portion of RNPOV directly at your text digestion apparatus AT LEAST five times. It specifically outlines why your concerns are irrelevant. Why do you continue to bring them up? I would point you to WP:ICANTHEARYOU. --King Öomie 00:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

One person's spoonful of sugar is another person's spoonful of crap. Using kiddie gloves to touch the subject of Genesis while using the sometimes harsh gloves of reality for all other faiths makes the adherents of Christianity and Judaism warm and fuzzy and just riles everyone else. That's the whole point of WP:WTA#Myth and Legend and WP:RNPOV. That's not to use the old adage "You can't please everyone all the time but you sure can piss them all off at once" but more along the lines of not taking a particular stance that favors any one belief over another in the interest of maintaining integrity. We (editors of Wikipedia) have policies and guidelines to refer to in the case of disputes such as this and we have to err on the side of policy, that's just the cost of doing business here. Nefariousski (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant, you got it. The approach suggested plays no favorites - treats Christians, Jews, Egyptians, you name it, the same way... Brilliant. Reminds me of: [25]..... History2007 (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Break #993,840

The full quote from RNPOV reads: "Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. 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 some particular terms can be found at words to avoid." The "words to avoid" link goes on to say "When using myth in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally, for instance by establishing the context of sociology, mythology or religion." No one is saying the term "creation myth" should not be used. Indeed the version of the article from the January 3, before all this drama started, uses the term five times. The argument is about making clear that the term is used by academics as a neutral term, not in its ordinary negative meaning. Why there is such strong objection to making the context clear, as our policy and guidelines suggest, is beyond me.--agr (talk)

The problem is that is an encyclopedia for 'ordinary' people; not for academia. You should "write for your intended audience", therefore the common usage/meaning of words is normally expected. ^rossnixon 01:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Entirely wrong. Everything in that statement goes against policy. You're talking about a complete rewrite of something like a dozen policies and style guides. Coming back to the OTHER oft-repeated, oft-ignored point- if you disagree with policy, THERE ALREADY EXISTS A FORUM TO VOICE YOUR CONCERNS- and it is not this page. --King Öomie 01:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I please bring Book of Genesis and its recent edit history to the attention of editors here. Sorry for the off topic comment, but I figure most people here are already familiar with the issue. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, ross is entirely correct. Here for example is WP:PCR: Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and worldviews. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to explain the subject fully. Avoid using jargon whenever possible. Consider the reader. An article entitled "Use of chromatic scales in early Baroque music" is likely to be read by musicians, and technical details and metalanguage, linked to articles explaining the metalanguage, are appropriate. An article entitled "Baroque music" is likely to be read by laypersons who want a brief and plainly written overview, with links to available detailed information. When jargon is used in an article, a brief explanation should be given within the article. Aim for a balance between comprehensibility and detail so that readers can gain information from the article. --agr (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is irrelevant here - the term creation myth is not jargon. Ben (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is jargon, and I submit it plainly is, the guideline says "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible." That means explaining terms they may be unfamiliar with, or worse, may misunderstand as pejorative when they are not. "It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to explain the subject fully." Why are you so resistant to clarifying the meaning of creation myth when it is first used?--agr (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, clarifying what "creation myth" means in the lead sentence is part of the proposal Ben made above. Gabbe (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"...may misunderstand as perjorat-" RNPOV says "Be quiet". I'm tired of this debunked argument. --King Öomie 13:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RNPOV says the exact opposite: "Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." Words to avoid, which RNPOV links to, goes on to say "When using myth in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally..." All I am saying is that we should word the introduction to make it clear that creation myth is being used in a non-pejorative sense. If others can agree to that perhaps we can move on and end this drama.--agr (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And what kind of introduction do you suggest? --King Öomie 15:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Arnold, do you not agree that establishing a religious context makes it clear that the term creation myth is being used in a non-pejorative sense and that this establishment then satisfies RNPOV? In the same way that establishing a scientific context makes it clear how the term theory is being used in any number of articles? I'm not opposed to making it clear what the term means by establishing context, and I believe the current intro does this, I'm just opposed to making it clear what the term means by forcing a dictionary definition where it doesn't belong (for the record, I would oppose the same technique to disambiguate theory). After all, there is a little bit more to writing well than being unambiguous, and repetition for the sake of disambiguating something that is already unambiguous in a religious context is not.

If a dictionary definition can be naturally introduced into the lead then I'm all for it. As Gabbe noted, I've offered a suggestion on how this can be done in the first sentence. I don't know of any other way this can be done in the first sentence, but to echo King Öomie, suggestions are welcomed. Cheers, Ben (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that establishing a religious context makes it clear that the term creation myth is being used in a non-pejorative sense. More care is needed as evidenced by the month-long argument on this talk page. I think "theory" is a good model here. In situations where there is potential controversy, our articles make an effort to provide context. Special relativity uses the term "physical theory," which it links to theoretical physics. Evolution avoids the word entirely until the fourth paragraph, and then introduces it in a carefully explained context. I would start the article with a short, neutral and accurate summary of what the first two chapters say. (The present text is wrong on the chapter division and no one seems to have picked up on the POV "sanctity of marriage" bit.) I would then introduce the term "creation myth" in the context of the question of one vs two, something like, "Many Bible scholars claim the Genesis account combines two distinct creation myths." This introduces the term in the context of Bible scholarship while providing new information to the reader. Other wordings are possible, of course.--agr (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nitpicking- Evolution is a special case, as it's not necessarily a 'theory', until you start talking about the 'theory of evolution'. See Evolution as theory and fact. So it's not really fair to say it 'avoids' the term until the fourth paragraph. Sort of like claiming that Bible skirts around its connection to Jesus until the sixth paragraph- while a significant part, that's not all the book is about. --King Öomie 16:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sanctity of marriage nonsense removed. --King Öomie 16:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) C'mon Arnold, you must see the parallel here.

I don't agree that establishing a scientific context makes it clear that the term physical theory is being used in a non-pejorative sense.

I think "myth" is a good model here. In situations where there is potential controversy, our articles make an effort to provide context. Creation according to Genesis uses the term "creation myth," which it links to creation myth.

If that reasoning was given by an editor of special relativity in the hopes of shuffling off the highly relevant term theory to later parts of the intro, even though it was preceded by the the word physical, would you be convinced? And the evolution article isn't about a theory, so that term doesn't belong in the introductory sentence. I stand by what I've been saying all along: The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?". In our case, the subject is a creation myth, and it's notable since it's a part of the Hebrew Bible. Cheers, Ben (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My point was that Special Relativity attempts to put the word theory in context by adding additional text, it doesn't just link to theory, which would be the parallel to our treatment of creation myth. And evolution, as discussed in our article, is certainly a theory. Earlier versions said so in the second sentence for many years. e.g. "Often the word evolution is used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection." Evolution then evolved. In any case, I made a suggestion as requested. I'd really appreciate comments on that.--agr (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Theory of Evolution is a theory. Evolution is not. It has been shown beyond all reasonable doubt that life undergoes iterative changes. Said theory is an attempt to explain WHY and HOW. Compare and contrast Gravity (elementary knowledge), and the Theory of Gravity (theoretical physics).

Your suggestion doesn't actually posit a new lede. What happens to the first sentence when we move Creation Myth away? We go back to calling the subject an 'account'? --King Öomie 19:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest something like "The first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book in the Hebrew Bible, describe the creation of the world and the first man and woman. Many modern Bible scholars say the text combines two distinct creation myths, while more traditional interpreters dispute this." (I'd drop the summary paragraph in the intro, by the way. I fixed the chapter division stuff after King deleted the sanctity of marriage sentence, so it's better, but I still find it too interpretive and unnecessary. We have a summary in the body of the article and the original text is only a couple of pages.)--19:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Refers to

The first sentence uses the deprecated "refers to" construction. Consider rewording it. See Wikipedia:REFERS. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Myth vs Story vs Account

I can see how some Christians might take offense at the word "myth". On the other hand, I think the word "account" is not quite right either. I vote for "story" as a middle ground.
Trelawnie (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the archived discussion at Talk:Creationism#Seeking consensus to change "myth" to "story"? Gabbe (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Or any of the 300KB of text above? Ship has sailed more often than a Carnival cruise. --King Öomie 13:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, changing "creation myth" to "creation account" makes it real. That is the religionists' purpose. CUSH 06:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the term "religionist". It rings with the same "I don't like these people, but I have no valid arguments" that "Evolutionist" or "Darwinist" has.

Which isn't to say that I wouldn't appreciate having access to a simple, plural word meaning "one of religious persuasion". I'm tired of having to say "The religious". --King Öomie 14:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is the religious who term everyone -ists to demean them, to imply a similarly uncompromizing adherence to ideology as they themselves hold. Religionists are those folks who believe to possess all the answers. Exactly those who think that Genesis *is* an account (i.e. a description of actual events) and not some myth (some made-up stuff). CUSH 14:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

While you're entitled to your opinion, this is not helpful. This is one more thing people can point at and say "we're being persecuted, they have an agenda". Please don't be that. --King Öomie 15:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I do in fact not care if folks feel persecuted because they cannot proselytize as much as they would like to. And of course I have an agenda. Its name is "accuracy on Wikipedia". The creation stuff in Genesis is a myth as any other myth about creation all throughout history. Why treat it differently by making it appear real? Giving an account is not the same as telling a myth. CUSH 19:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

'Creation Myth' is a scholarly term that does not assign truth value, as outlined in the FAQ above. THAT is why we're proposing it rather than the less-formal 'account' or 'story'. We're not here to smack the poor believers around. But given your... dislike for the religious people here, I'd think you'd avoid giving them ammo. Cut it out. --King Öomie 20:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I preserve neutrality in articles but certainly not on talk pages. I am sick beyond description of religiously non-neutral language being introduced into articles that touch religious issues. I would certainly like to move "Yahweh" to "Yahweh (mythology)" just as other articles on deities are presented. NPOV is key. THAT's the reason we are removing language that seeks to present religious claims as reality. CUSH 20:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You were not involved in the quite sizeable debate above. Please don't hijack this for your own purposes. Wikipedia does not declare any religions 'false', and it is not NPOV to assert that it should. --King Öomie 20:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Christian and Jewish fundamentalists have been hijacking countless articles that refer to issues that touch religious doctrine, especially articles about certain events and periods in ancient Middle Eastern history. Wikipedia is not a platform for spreading doctrine for any particular faith. Hence we use neutral language and we use reliable sources that have critically analyzed the claims made by the teachings of the faith at issue. I am content with "myth" or "story", although I think that myth is not a piece of writing. CUSH 23:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that there are some editors who try to push their POV with fanatical fury but reacting in an emotional way doesn't do anything but turn the editing process into a tit for tat, us vs. them bitch session. When they make an edit to "Creation Fact" and justify it on the basis of the bible being 100% literally true and then you change the edit to "Creation Bullshit" and justify it on the basis of the bible being a complete lie nobody has gained higher ground and both sides end up looking like petulant children. POV hijack type edits can be fixed without asserting opposite POV, policy is on your side. It's easy to get emotional on both sides of the fence regarding these articles but in the end cooler heads prevail. Nefariousski (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

7 days of Creation

Genesis 1 beautifully/poetically describes the 7 days of creation. I added a sentence summarizing these elements, which are described later in the article in more detail.
Trelawnie (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Due Diligence

Considering that the main argument against the usage of the term "Creation myth" is one of people getting upset because they think it's being used informally and that policy after policy state that when using such words it's important to make sure that formal context and usage is established the following IMO meets that burden. We have a wikilink to the actual Creation Myth article which clarifies the context, I've just added a FAQ to further explain and we have a novella's worth of repetitive clarification. Anyone that still has issues or thinks that people are going to be confused should probably visit WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Have a little faith in your fellows, any reasonably intelligent person should get that we're not using the pejorative "myth" considering all that has been done. If they don't then they're likely the type of person that is just looking for an excuse to be offended. Nefariousski (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Supposed to leave typos alone... can't... do it... argh! Spellcheck > self-restraint --King Öomie 17:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nefariousski. Cheers, Ben (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's early and the coffee is still brewing. You have full permission to fix any of my typos :) Nefariousski (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem with footnote 1

Footnote 1 gives a link to a subscription-only website (Oxford Reference online). Nothing wrong with the reliability of the site, but being subscription-only means it isn't readily confirmable by the average user, which is something all wiki-refs are supposed to be. I suggest someone who thinks this is important takes the definition or whatever it is you think important from that site and paste it into the footnote - the link itself should stay, of course. PiCo (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I find that very hard to believe. After all, the link to the online version of the book is simply an added convenience - physical copies of the book are likely "readily available" in most academic and decent public libraries. Do you have a reference to some policy or guideline that defines "readily confirmable" and that "all wiki-refs are supposed to be [readily confirmable]"? Nevertheless, how much of quote are you looking for exactly? The most relevant sentence is probably:

"In Gen. the Creation and the Fall are myths, and are markedly similar to the creation stories of Israel's Near Eastern neighbours."

I hope that helps, but please reply re: policy/guidelines. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:PAYWALL. This is not considered a burden on editors, any more than if you had to go out and buy a book to check a reference. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Allegorical interpretations of Genesis

Editors here may be interested in the above article, which is full of original research. Dougweller (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

biblegateway.com

Is there any reason why we link to these guys, and not use ordinary references and a link to the commons wikisource:Genesis (if applicable)? The website looks pretty rife with advertising, and I'm fairly opposed to linking to sites like that unless there are no alternatives. Thoughts? Cheers, Ben (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

biblegateway.com is a comprehensive collection of bible editions, and although it does not feature apocrypha or the Septuagint, it's a acceptable reference to use. I would of course recommend sacred-texts.com as well. CUSH 13:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikisource Genesis is dominated by Evangelical and out-of-date translations, none of them up to date or really reliable. Biblegateway is preferable. PiCo (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Wikisource is a wiki, and each of the translations are public domain, there is no reason we can't just copy desired translations across is there? This is not something we have to do right now, after all links to online versions of references are simply conveniences while the actual reference is the critical part. Linking to wikisource instead of biblegateway.com encourages us (wikifolk) to start building our own collection. Secondly, no-one seems to be addressing the issue of using two different referencing styles, one for the Bible and another for everything else. Cheers, Ben (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason for prefering Bible Gateway is the alternative to change translation instantly, with a wealth of translations available. Without biblegateway.com we would have numerous irresolvable and completely unncessary wars over KJV vs. NIV vs. Douay-Rheims vs. NASB etc. Gabbe (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Myth is unsourced

"Myth" is unsourced. "Genesis" is an account of creation. If we wish to portray Genesis as a "myth" in our article we would need a source to support the use of the word myth.

"Myth" puts a particular "spin" on the narrative of creation that is provided in Genesis. The FAQ explains that it (myth) is used by "academics and scholars," but we don't know that — because no source is provided.

Furthermore minority views should not be vaulted up to the level of majority views. WP:NEUTRAL requires the representation of "all significant views." Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see the reference was removed by 76.253.99.32 (talk) so I've readded it. Also, the relevant policy/guidelines are at WP:WTA#Myth and legend and WP:RNPOV. Gabbe (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're confused. Creation Myth is the term that is used / sourced and there's an entire FAQ to clear this up for you. Feel free to scroll up to the top of this talk page and check it out. Nefariousski (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

somebody should add the evolution myth on this page. --Templeknight (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

... what? You might need to clarify your question. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This text is accepted as a true documentation by many people. It is ok to write that many others have accepted another idea as their truth. But to judge the truth by using the word myth is not a NPOV ! --Templeknight (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see the earlier discussions. Whether some people consider it truth or not is irrelevant to the fact: no one witnessed any of the events described, and there is no evidence to support it. Just like Greco-Roman or Norse mythology, the story of Genesis is accurately described by scholars as mythology. Doesn't make it true or false to call it a myth. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. Not a religionist platform. And there is no such thing as personal truth. Either you have reliable sources that feature solid evidence to show that Genesis is a "documentation" or you leave the article alone. Creation Myths exist in many religions, including Judaism and its offshoots. And the Jewish creation myth is not special or more "true" that any other, especially as we know that most of it is stolen from various Mesopotamian traditions anyways. CUSH 00:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The word myth is a POV judgement about the quality of this documentation. wikipedi should only publish NPOV. It is a fact that it is a documentation. And it is a fact that this documentation has never been proven wrong. The fact that it scientificaly hasnt proven right either is not important in this case it should be described as documentation and nothing else. --Templeknight (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

So here we go with stereotypical creationist rant. This is an encyclopedia with rules. You are not exempt from providing reliable sources for what you seek to write into an article. You may write that certain fringe religious groupings view Genesis as literally true, because that can be easily sourced, but you may not write that Genesis is in fact literally true, because that - as we all know - cannot be sourced at all. The creation as described in Genesis is a myth as is that of any other religious group. It is not any more special than that of the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Maya, the Inca, the Mesopotamians, the Chinese, or that of anybody else. It is clearly a religious story and not one describing actual events in the formation of the universe, the solar system, or the earth with its features. CUSH 11:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not say it should be written that it is true .... I said it is a documentation. It is ok to mention that this documentation is been considered false by some and considered true by others. But wikipedia is not the place to judge who is right. --Templeknight (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Talking about the "Genesis creation myth" is not the same thing as saying that Genesis is false. See the FAQ above. Gabbe (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Truth is not a matter of personal consideration. Documentation means the description of something that actually happened, which is clearly not so. Otherwise there would be indications for that. You may write that some hold on to the myth and others don't.

But we do not open a separate section for the sheeple of Ken Ham and Kent Hovind. CUSH 11:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

At GABBE: Ask 20 Persons on the street if they believe that a MYTH is something true or just an old story and you will understand the problem with using this word. It doesnt matter what some english teacher might think about its meaning if the rest of the world uses the word different.

At Cush: you dont have a NPOV ...... There are many scientific proofs about the Genesis documentation ... but again we should not discuss here if this is true or not we should just take care that we have NPOV. --Templeknight (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is proofs, you should not have trouble finding reliable publications elaborating on them, should you? CUSH 12:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

thats right but we dont need them here since this is not a discussion about if this is true or not.

But for your private Information some scinetific proofs: Big_Bang Mendelian_inheritance --Templeknight (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that formal meaning of the word "myth" differs from the informal meaning is no argument against using the word "myth" in a formal setting. See WP:WTA#Myth and legend: "Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception." Gabbe (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

But it looks like informal use. And WP:WTA#Myth and legend tells us to not use it this way. --Templeknight (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What leads you to conclude that the word is used informally? Gabbe (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Its the typical impression most people get. --Templeknight (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You are not most people.

Oh, and please stop messing up the indentation. CUSH 21:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Templeknight: How do you know that its the typical impression most people get? Gabbe (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We already went through why this is a useless line of reasoning: The encyclopedia isn't written according to "typical impressions", otherwise scientific articles wouldn't use the word theory, the universe article would contain significant discussion of geocentrism as a current model, the evolution article would talk about how wrong the concept is, all but the most basic topics would be empty or non-existent pages, etc. The purpose of this encyclopedia is to give short expositions of topics that are consistent with experts and reliable sources on the topic. Consistency with "typical impressions" is not even on the radar. If that's your cup of tea though and you just want to be told what you already know, I suggest Conservapedia. I also think this be added to the FAQ. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation account

Just like any other article on any other subject this article is subject to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The article is on the subject of the Genesis creation myth, but it (Genesis) is considered the "living word of God" by some people. It is highly disingenuous to foist upon the general reader the untenable notion that "myth" does not mean "myth." Whether used "formally" or "informally" a similar notion is conveyed. Scholars and academics do not just happen to choose a term that conveys "falsehood" in its "informal" application. This is by design, because "scholars and academics" examine a multiplicity of religious and pseudo-religious explanations for the origin of existence. These explanations are at odds with one another, and none of them hold up to scientific scrutiny. The term "myth" fulfills the needs in this context just as it fulfills similar requirements in so-called "informal" contexts. Neutral point of view calls for the representation of all significant countervailing views. Thus the veracity and literal factuality of Genesis warrants a place in this article. Though the title may be the Genesis creation myth, elsewhere in the article reference should be made to for instance the "Genesis creation account." The "account" of creation according to Genesis represents a neutral point of view. It neither attributes "falsehood" to itself nor does it assert that it is unambiguously the final word on the subject of "creation." Bus stop (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You are perfectly correct when you say "[j]ust like any other article on any other subject this article is subject to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy," but the rest of your post indicates that it's likely you haven't read, or properly understood, what you're quoting. The word neutral here doesn't mean "it sounds good to group X", it means neutral with respect to reliable sources. That is, we write articles that are consistent with and in proportion to reliable sources on a given topic. What you, me, or anyone else likes is irrelevant. Finally, please read the FAQ at the top of this page. Cheers, Ben (talk)

Bus stop: The WP:NPOV policy contains a portion specifically dealing with religion: WP:RNPOV. Have you read it? Gabbe (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The argument in favour of using the phrase "creation myth" is basically this: Wikipedia articles follow what academics and other experts on their respective topic do (see WP:SOURCES). We don't try to best them by "improving" their terminology. The fact that terms they use may be offensive to readers is not an argument against using such terms, since Wikipedia is not censored (see WP:CENSOR). Therefore, the word "account" is not neutral, but the term "creation myth" is. And finally, the view that Genesis is not only true but literally true is held by only a very small minority. Not only among scholars and scientists, but even within Christianity and Judaism. Because of this, the "Genesis is literally true" viewpoint might not deserve mention in this article at all, per WP:DUE. But that is irrelevant, since this article doesn't say or imply that Genesis is not to be taken literally. Gabbe (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What you say is not true because 1 130 000 000 members of the roman catholic church share the catholic truth which believe the creation documentation is literaly true (CIC Can. 750 -§ 1). So this realy should be mentioned. --Templeknight (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. Roman Catholicism holds Genesis to be religiously true, not literally. And the number of Catholic adherents who do hold the creation in Genesis to be literally true is fringe.

BTW I was raised a Roman Catholic. CUSH 11:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Templeknight: Roman Catholics are among those Christians that almost exclusively assert that Genesis is not to be interpreted literally. See for example The Gift of Scripture. Gabbe (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not true. It is the law of church that orers to take bible literaly and everybody that doesnt is been considered a heretic. And related to your link just have a look at Dei_Verbum. And I guess wikipedia is not the place to judge how many catholics realy believe in the catholic teaching. And even this discussion is unnecessary since it is a fact that 1 1300 000 000 people are members of a church that publicly teaches that the bible is literaly true. For this reason it should not be said that this is a believe of a small group and doesnt deserve to be mentioned --Templeknight (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There may be legitimacy for the term "myth" in this context. But you are using it to hit people over the head with it, figuratively speaking. It needs to be placed in its context so that the reader is presented with a full and evenhanded picture of extant approaches to the entity called "Genesis." It is a literary work that provides a cornerstone of religions. There is no need to endorse falseness or veracity in relation to that entity. And it is not educational to present material without explanation. One should not have to look to the "FAQ" to comprehend the article. There is a place in the article for the verbose spelling out of the academic usage of the term "myth," as well as any distinctions that may be deemed necessary between any "formal" and "informal" use of the term "myth." All of this should be sourced and all of this should be in plain English right in article space. No reader of the article should need a familiarity with WP:RNPOV to comprehend the article. WP:RNPOV exists to spell out problems that have been encountered and how to approach them. But the article itself should not be cryptic, relying on a circumlocutious path to the FAQ and to WP:RNPOV. The article is supposed to elucidate. The article is not supposed to muddy the issue or pull the wool over anyone's eyes. The word "myth" is the same word in the two usages in which you are claiming it is used. It is therefore incumbent on you, the editor, to explain the apparent contradiction in the two meanings, or at least the two usages, of the word. This should be thoroughly done in article space. Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh. So do you advocate as in depth a discussion of the term theory in every scientific article that uses the term? Or do you think a wikilink to an article that discusses the term theory should suffice in the event a reader is curious? Cheers, Ben (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As soon as a theory is prooven it is not longer called a theory so this question doesnt hit reality. --Templeknight (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)