Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Notice of a new proposal

As far as I can see, both Weapon's and Cush's proposals above have succeeded. All that is missing is an extremely brave person to close those discussions in favor of the proposals on the basis of the evidence and arguments offered, noting a substatial number (but still a minority) of editors have expressed no objection to the term "creation myth", indeed their preference for it, and they are not without considerable non-partisan scholastic support.

The decisive issue is that not all scholars support the expression "creation myth" in its application to Genesis 1 in particular. Indeed, this disagreement is also expressed by non-partisan scholars, though strictly speaking scholastic commitment never invalidates their arguments or opinions, they all believe what they say, or why do they say it, and how could we trust their reliability?

However, although I have supported both proposals myself, and think both could work, I don't think either is ideal. I think discussion has been dominated by the issue of using "creation myth", and support or opposition of the proposals in nearly all cases has come down to opposition or support for the phrase "creation myth".

As a baby theological writer, I am willing to go on public record as believing the text of Genesis 2-3 is a symbolic narrative and, in all meaningful senses of the technical usage of the phrase, a creation myth. I happen also to have the personal conviction that it is a divinely inspired and absolutely reliable symbolic narrative, with implications for daily life as explained in the New Testament, but I mention that only in the interests of full disclosure.

I am not willing to go on public record as believing Genesis 1 to be a purely symbolic narrative, though I am willing to admit that I am personally persuaded by the established results of contemporary science, which entail that much of Genesis 1 reflects the standard ancient view of the physcial world as they knew it, which we now know was somewhat myopic. It is very important that it be understood I am advancing an opinion here that makes my own religious tradition vulnerable to being falsified. I am claiming that substantial parts of Genesis 1 are supposed to describe the real physical world accurately, as they could then be known. Parts of Genesis 1 can indeed be described as scientific, according to scientific paradigms that are now outmoded. Some of the "science" of Genesis 1 is much better understood now than then. As such, Genesis 1 is a reliable primary source of ancient scientific paradigms, but an unreliable source of scientific understanding now, since science has "moved on". So Genesis is a good resource for the history and philosophy of science, but a poor one for physics, chemistry and biology.

But Genesis 1 is not merely ancient science, it is also, in part, symbolic narrative. Since ancient times the "days" of Genesis 1 have been understood, even by some notable believers, as symbolic days. But does this mean that those parts of Genesis can be felicitously called "myth"? I think not. For two important reasons. Firstly, "myth" in the technical sense usually involves wide appeal to diverse supernatural powers, which is certainly true of the myths of the Genesis writer's neighbours. Genesis is demonstrably not the earliest cosmogony in its region. So many scholars (many have claimed a consensus) consider Genesis to be a secondary source regarding those earlier myths, and so many of those scholars have also considered it to have interacted with them critically, rather than uncritically, that we must admit the PoV that Genesis 1 is anti-mythological or demythologizing, in the context of the world of its composition. It should go without saying that calling an anti-mythological text "myth" is stretching the bounds of clear use of language.

There is a last feature of issues in this discussion that warrants little explanation, but must be stated. It violates the spirit of the technical sense of "creation myth", if not the very letter of its ordinary definition, to apply the word "supernatural" indiscriminately to a real God at work in human history. Such a God would not be merely supernatural but natural as well. Such a God would not be merely part of a pantheon hypothesized to have given shape to features of the world, but the actual first cause of everything. I happen, personally, to believe in such a God, which makes me appreciate more acutely why "creation myth" is inappropriate in the context of Genesis 1. But it is not necessary to believe in the God of Genesis to appreciate the point.

So, then, the current title must be altered, as discussion above has already demonstrated. My new proposal will assume that fact. I will ask people to either support, or to raise any verifiable or reasonable objection, other than a preference for the term "creation myth", to entitling the current article Creation in Genesis. If no objections can be substantiated within a week, I trust someone will close the discussion by renaming and moving the current article.

I am happy not to make this proposal if Weapon or Cush wish to continue with their own, and would really appreciate their feedback, and that of any others who care to comment. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You're joking right? [The current title] violates the spirit of the technical sense of "creation myth" .. [by applying] the word "supernatural" indiscriminately to a real God at work in human history. If you're serious, then please see WP:V and WP:NPOV. Ben (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You might want to reread those policies Ben. That's my point exactly. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Suppose you are an intellectual impostor, ... what kind of literary style would you cultivate? Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose [you]. Or maybe I'm an intellectual deadbeat and the problem here is mine. Either way my advice is: make clear your point. Ben (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ben, a person doesn't need to be an intellectual deadbeat to have problems following a point that falls outside of his paradigm. In other words, a Macintosh computer could be a perfectly fine piece of hardware and have trouble loading a Windows operating system. You strike me as rather intelligent, but sometimes you seem to lack that appreciation for others. Alastair seemed pretty straightforward there: Weapon and Cush both offered proposals that easily cleared the hurdle of acceptable consensus, but Alastair's proposal was more ignored than rejected, so he'd like to make sure it didn't just get lost in the excitement to replace the current title. In other words, he's giving his proposal a "bump" because he'd much rather have it rejected than merely lost in the shuffle. As for "creation myth" I'd have to agree with him. Those promoting "myth" are doing so basically as "false science" rather than merely a (true or false) "symbolic narrative." And "supernatural" doesn't really delimit a concept of God which is immanent (nature) and not merely transcendent (supernature). In other words, the Jewish and Christian concept of "God" is not merely "supernatural" but more specifically "natural", and must be so by definition. It is not merely divine action if God were to raise someone from the dead, but rather it is divine action that anyone lives at all: each natural heartbeat echoes the presence of an infinitely immanent deity. The confinement of the Jewish/Christian deity to supernature is therefore not applicable to that deity. It would be like rejecting Jesus because he was a woman... while that may actually BE your view, no one here is actually CLAIMING that he is a woman. So, therefore, your rejection, though noted, is irrelevant.

None of this means that God exists. It merely means that your SPECIFIC definitions of that deity are not applicable to the actual religions who's text you are trying to label. You've been trying to reject a definition no one here is trying to promote. Most of your arguments fall along the lines of "noise."

As I said, you are quite intelligent, and if you will merely recognize that others here are ALSO intelligent then you may take the time to have a discussion regarding their own views, rather than the views you imagine them to have.EGMichaels (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly Cush's is far better, it allows for slight broadening of the scope, and since he came across the aisle with a compromise. I think it is the better of the two thus i struck my original Proposal Weaponbb7 (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alastair, I think Weapon has two good points there. "Biblical creation" certainly leaves the door open for a more... systematic exploration of the subject.EGMichaels (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Biblical creation should be an article about making bibles. I really hope you can keep Genesis in the title. And I will cheerfully accept whatever title is decided as long as I can still find the article about the creation story found in Genesis. Nitpyck (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"Bible Creation" would do that, people generally will get the Gyst Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the word "biblical" is too vague. See here (Humanities Reference desk) and here (Language Reference desk) for the wide range of meanings people assign to the word "bible" which is of course very much related to the word "biblical." I don't see what advantage there is in substituting "biblical" for "Genesis" in the title. Bus stop (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think again most people will not try to include the Book of Enoch here, to me common sense is the solution if it comes up Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "Creation in Genesis" is my favorite title. As I hinted to Alastair, "Biblcal creation" opens the subject to a more systematic approach. It is no longer text based, but rather subject based -- and thus would be more applicable to input from Systematic Theologians rather than Biblical Scholars.EGMichaels (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

EGMichaels — Why do you (apparently) prefer "Creation in Genesis" to "Creation according to Genesis"? Bus stop (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop, when I did a sanity check of "Creation according to the Silmarillion" I did see Cush's (Pico's? I've lost track) point that "according to" does connote reality of some kind. It just didn't work with Silmarillion because it's obviously fiction -- and to anyone who's POV has Genesis as obviously fiction it won't work either. We need a title that will work for ALL POVs. As for Lisa's suggestion below: "Genesis creation narrative" is perfectly fine, as would be the sanity check of "Silmarillion creation narrative." I simply like "Creation in Genesis" because it doesn't call Genesis ANYTHING -- not story, not narrative, not myth, not history, nada. It's just bare bones, and works just fine, although "Creation in the Silmarillion" might connote either Tolkien's creative process or his thematic treatment of the subject of "creation" in that work. But, since we don't really know the author of Genesis, most of that potential pitfall is moot.EGMichaels (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

How about Genesis creation narrative? I mean, we're all talking about whether the narrative is an account or a myth or a story or whatever, but we seem to all agree that it's a narrative, no? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I find that acceptable. My opposition to "Genesis creation myth" was that it ("creation myth") constituted unnecessary commentary. If all agree that there is no controversy in referring to the subject of the article as a "narrative" then I don't think there should be opposition to your suggested title, "Genesis creation narrative," based on specific opposition to the characterization of the subject matter as a "narrative." Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly lets end this; I really tired of debating, we seem to have clear Consensus, Any serious objections to Cush's suggestion? I am giving till 10:00 Pm GMT/UTC beofore i post to The Admin Notice board to ask them to formally move the page Weaponbb7 (talk)

To this point I haven't expressed my concerns for future stablity of article content regarding Biblical creation as a title, because I wanted to support Cush's generous bid for compromise, just like Weapon (and probably others). I also wanted to see if other oppose voters would follow Cush's lead. I don't think that's happened, nor do I think it will.

The two major concerns I have with Biblical creation are scope and sense. Regarding scope, I guess I should ask Lisa how much of the lead she'll allow me to devote to the first verses of the Gospel according to John. Need I say more?

Regarding sense, I'm glad it is not me who has had to bring up the fact that it does strike me as being about creating Bibles, or something like that. In fact, I think a reader would need to know quite a bit about the topic, and about a broader context for the topic, to know what we mean by it. If Bible must be the scope, I'd still prefer "Creation in" nomenclature, like a swag of other editors above: Creation in the Bible.

But, as I've said, I'll not prolong closure of the current discussions by holding out for Creation in Genesis, if Cush objects to it. All I'm saying is that discussion appears to have run its course and closure is needed now. "Creation in" nomenclature seems most popular, and Genesis seems most popular for scope. I agree with both those views and have seen no objections to them, so I'm happy to propose them on behalf of all.

PS here are the words that are essential to a Christian understanding of Biblical creation. I really don't think we want to open that can of worms.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ²He was with God in the beginning. ³Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1, NIV)

Back to work on Indian religions. So much happier and easier. Cheerio all. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair Haines — why have you just removed the posts of other editors, including myself? Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict and my browser didn't handle it well.

It's nice to see that while I was typing that closure was needed, and soon, Weapon was typing that he'd be seeing to it that this would happen.

Biblical creation is a nice big topic "biblical theology creation" gave me 184,000 hits at Google Scholar.

The first few pages were full of books and writers I value highly.

I'm not sure whether the title is best for readers, but it's certainly a gift for Christian writers.

So you'll have no objections from me personally, but I do have reservations for the sake of others, but I've already posted them. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for Cush's suggestion. There is no reason at all to expand the scope of this article from the Genesis creation narrative to Biblical anything. But if you go through the talk page, you'll see that no one has any problem with it being called a narrative. So you could make a case that there's an implied consensus for Genesis creation narrative. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with your first two sentences more. I don't agree with the rest of your post I'm afraid. Alastair, please be more careful. If you mess up discussion, please go ahead and fix it. Ben (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Implied Cases are just they are "not stated", lisa i dont know why you complain about this, this compromise solves alot of problems, I can think of three possible reason you argue this. (1) you think narative is better, (2) expanding it to biblical you might fear it exapnds it beyond the coverage of the torah, (3) giving in to Cush is not something you wasnt to. I am inclined to think it combonation of those. Please we are trying to compromise Cush has given in way more than i think he likes, let meet him halfway Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Weaponbb7 — Lisa is making a suggestion. It is not a bad suggestion. Lisa suggested the title "Genesis creation narrative." Why not just comment on her suggested title? Do we really have to contemplate what's in any other editor's mind? Why don't just stick to discussing what would be the best title for this article? Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding scope and "Biblical" I do not agree that Biblical necessarily implies more than Genesis narrative. For instance the Oxford Companion to World Mythology deals with only this creation narrative under the title "Biblical Creation". It should be noted that "myth" is most likely implied given that it is a companion to "mythology" and given that "Biblical creation myth" appears in the text itself. In other words by way of actual use it is not clear that "Biblical creation (myth)" conventionally includes anything outside of Genesis.Griswaldo (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about how much Cush is "giving in". That shouldn't even be an issue. This is about what's an appropriate title for the article. I do think that narrative is better, because I have yet to hear anyone suggest that it isn't a narrative. The people who pushed for "myth" think that the narrative is a myth. Others think it isn't. But everyone agrees that it is one. Cush, for some unfathomable reason, thinks that both account and story imply that it actually happened. I don't get it, but I accept it.

Expanding it to biblical is simply unnecessary. To do so for the sole reason that it would reward Cush for "giving in" seems patronizing beyond belief.

As far as me not wanting to "give in" to Cush, I dropped the idea of account or story, despite my disagreement, so you're misstating the facts, in addition to attributing motives, which is a no-no.

Why are you so adamant to force a consensus that doesn't exist? This discussion has been about what to name an article. Changing the article to something else entirely shouldn't even be on the agenda. This article is about the Genesis creation narrative/story/account/myth/fairy tale/hallucination or whatever you want to call it. It isn't about "Biblical creation". That wouldn't even limit it to creation of the world, for crying out loud. It's more than a change of scope, it's a change of subject. And there is no consensus to do so. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head, Lisa. There is no consensus, full stop. But consensus is only required to change policy, not to apply it. The current title has had three weeks to defend itself against the substantiated and majority objection that it is POV, and the defense has failed. By default the title should revert to Creation according to Genesis.

Since that proposal has been withdrawn, we either accept the new proposal, which includes an expansion of scope (i.e. it is two proposals in one), or we offer a new proposal.

As mentioned, I'm still waiting for Cush to speak first. Cush's proposal would suit me personally, so I'll not oppose his proposal. However, for the sake of readers and the community, I'd prefer the title was: 1. focussed on Genesis and 2. made no claims about literary genre, since this is not settled unanimously in the literature and is unnecessary for identifying the topic.

If you formally propose Genesis creation narrative, Lisa, I'll support you. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I formally propose that we change the title of the article to Genesis creation narrative. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I support this proposal.Mk5384 (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposals

Editor	Creation according to Genesis	Genesis creation myth	Biblical creation	Genesis creation narrative	Creation in Genesis	Biblical creation myth
EGMichaels	Weak Support	Oppose	Weak Oppose	Support	Strong Support	Strong Oppose
Lisa	Neutral	Strong Oppose	Strong Oppose	Strong Support	Support	Strong Oppose
Weapon	Support	Oppose	Strong Support	Weak Support	Support	Strong Oppose
Cush
Ben
Alastair	Support	Oppose	Weak Oppose	Support	Support	Strong Oppose
AFA Prof01	Support	Strong oppose	Oppose	Strong support	Oppose	Strong oppose
UberCryxic	Oppose	Support	Oppose	Oppose	Oppose
Til Eulenspiegel	Support	Oppose	Support	Support	Support
Hans Adler	Neutral	Support	Weak oppose	Support	Oppose	Support
Ross Nixon	Weak support	Strong oppose	Strong support	Support	Neutral	Strong oppose
Griswaldo	Oppose	Oppose	Oppose	Support	Oppose	Oppose
AuthorityTam	Support	Strong Oppose	Weak Oppose	Weak Support	Strong Support	Strong Oppose
etc
Total	7	2	3	10	7	1

EGM i love these tables! these are so handy!Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, another poll. Is this the 7th now? Let's see, 3 Requested Moves, the third split into three more successive polls, article name dropping on User_talk:Jimbo Wales, this table and countless threads in between, all by the same small contingent trying to erase, or at least obscure, mention of the term creation myth. The amount of effort you folks have put into doing this would be enough to turn this article into an FA twice over. It's time to quit the so obviously tendentious editing - continually starting new polls until you get the answer you want. In fact, I suggest a 1 year moratorium on discussion of the article's title. Ben (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ben, since the "non-myth" folks don't have an agenda, they are willing to explore what the sources say. While "creation myth" is one characterization that does appear in the available literature, it is in a distinct minority in the sources. We are trying to find a title that is the most neutral POV, which ALLOWS both "creation myth" characterizations and "demythologizing polemic" and everything in between. Wikipedia editors have an obligation to follow sources and be committed to neutrality between all notable and reliable points of view. Only those truly and passionately committed to a singular POV will refuse to support equally documented alternatives. Hence the need for a poll to explore what we are finding in the sources, and what strikes us as making the article available to readers who enter common terms in a search engine. While "creation myth" is one possible name, it is most certainly not a name readers will think of typing. How, then, are they even to find this article without a host of aliases constantly forwarding people's generic NPOV searches into a heavily POV limited article title.EGMichaels (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I second that, but of course the discussion will devolve into another tit-for-tat over whether we should have a moratorium in the first place. Everything here is like an endless argument, no matter what the particular topic. It's just a controversial subject I guess.UBER ^(talk) 04:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason there is a problem with making a decision is because Wikipedia processes are designed to do exactly the right thing: allow people who have already been committed to reading and documenting reliable sources to welcome people who are willing to come on board.

Unfortunately, in practice what happens is people who have modest knowledge of the sources and modest commitment to the article, but do have a broad ideological commitment related to a topic engage sufficiently with discussion to ensure their ideology is represented.

That is not always a bad thing, but sometimes it's pushed way too far.

No, what is happenning at the moment might be slow, but it is correct.

We are all contributing to building up a proposal that can be closed by someone who knows nothing of the issues, except what we document for them. A poll is part of that picture. It will show that there are a wide range of acceptable titles. Add to that information the data already provided showing "creation myth" is only one PoV, and the closer can toss a coin for any of the alternative titles proposed, or better still, pick any one that addresses the right scope, without having any substantiated objections against it.

A closure made by tallying votes is unstable without a quorum, but one made on reliable sources and clear reasoning will endure.

Closures here are not made by experts, so they depend on the value of the information discussion participants provide.

Our job is clear: provide sources and reasoning to make life easy for a closer, who represents a reader who knows nothing.

A poll is great, since it shows that there are lots of possible titles. It will also show which people are unwilling to compromise. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

PS Guess who is most compromising so far? Weapon! Anyone surprised? Not me. Bravo Weapon! Alastair Haines (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What a silly comment! There was only one column that has "creation myth" in it, so according to your logic anyone who thinks that term is the main problem is automatically extremely compromising. I have added another column ("biblical creation myth"), which in my opinion is even better than "Genesis creation myth". Hans Adler 13:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Cush (or Pico?) did have a good point that "Creation according to Genesis" implies fact. And I DO prefer Alastair's "Creation in Genesis" the best because of its specific scope (Genesis) and last of characterization of the creation account (i.e. as narrative, story, myth).EGMichaels (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

How is that a good point? How does Creation according to Genesis imply fact? If Creation according to Genesis differs from Creation according to the Qur'an and from Creation according to Buddhism and from Creation according to The Silmarillion, then none of them are being touted as fact. They're all being labeled as what this or that source says about Creation.

You said before that you think it implies fact. This time, I'd like you to explain that assertion. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Lisa, I've already explained it. It's not a denotation but rather a connotation. And, to be fair, it may not even be an implication, but rather merely open to that inference. When I did a sanity check against "Creation according to the Silmarillion" it struck me as odd. That's all. I'm trying to be as fair to all sides as possible. When Cush said it struck him a certain way, I did a sanity check and could see how he felt that way.EGMichaels (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Lisa, thank you for saying this, because I used to think the same as you do about "Creation according to Genesis".

You are absolutely right, CatG does not imply or denote fact, however it is still problematic.

EGM's thought-experiment Creation according to the Silmarillion demonstrates that the phrasing connotes fact.

The fact that is being connoted is the fact of a creation, hence of a Creator or creators.

It is not the factuality of the Genesis account that is being connoted, it is the actuality of a creation, hence of a Creator.

Creation according to Genesis, is a fine phrase to use if one thinks Genesis is false but someone or something created the world.

But if one believes there is no Creator or creators, as well as thinking Genesis is false history or false science (say Dawkins), then one will object to this phrasing.

Strictly speaking, I should withdraw my support for that title, now DGM has provided a valid objection to it (as opposed to the invalid objections others have given). However, it requires very wooden, unimaginative and uncompromising interpretation to understand CatG in the PoV sense, so I will follow DGMs example and modify my poll position to Weak support. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"Creation according to ..." is also stylistically awkward. The phrase "according to" is most commonly used to describe the opinions or claims of beings that have agency. If we say, "according to Bob ..." we expect that whatever is attributed to Bob is an accurate reflection of what Bob claims, and we assume that if it isn't Bob is able to set the story straight. When people say "according to the (X text)" there is a similar claim to accuracy involved, but unlike Bob, a text cannot set the story straight. The obvious need for interpretation (and in this case translation for one or more ancient languages) should make us weary of implying that there is an authoritative version of what Genesis claims about anything ... creation included. Personally I would be much less concerned about the "connotation" described above, and much more concerned about the implication of authority. There is good reason for such concern as well because in common parlance statements that begin with phrases like "according to the Bible ..." are usually made by people who believe their very narrow interpretation is the only accurate reading possible. So I agree, even if for different reasons, that this is a phrase to avoid.Griswaldo (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, I've recently encountered a similar issue in another religious tradition. There are multiple versions of the Ramayana and of the Mahabharata, but one cultural group appeal to minority textual traditions of each work as authority for the validity of their culture. That's fine by me, I'm very remote from all the issues involved, but I can see the point that "Culture X according to the Ramayana and the Mahabharata" are quite inappropriate. (That hasn't stopped Wiki editors from saying this though, and I'll not get fussy about their use of "according to" and change it.)

However, I'm only aware of one alternative text of Genesis: the Samaritan Pentateuch. And I'm not really sure that counts as a different text, and not in the sections relevant to this article. So, I'm just dropping in a note to indicate I understand your point: I can certainly see how it applies in other articles. But in this one, I'm not convinced it does, in fact, quite the opposite. "According to Bob" is a very uncertain thing, because Bob can change his mind or change his story. "According to the Mahabharata" is also uncertain, because we know it had a dynamic textual history. But "according to Genesis" is extremely well defined. The received text of Genesis is the Masoretic Text, which is not appreciably different from the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Septuagint Greek translation. Biblical Hebrew is an extremely well-known language.

Mesopotamian creation myths, however, are nowhere near as well-defined. People stopped transcribing them. Most have alternative versions, even among the copies that have been recovered by archeologists.

As far as I can see, it is only people, like me, who believe Genesis to be exactly what God himself wants us to think about, who could possibly interpret Creation according to Genesis as an appeal to authority. But, since this is an encyclopedia written from the neutral point of view, such an appeal to authority cannot be read into it. When last I checked, editors were not required to certify their commitment to the divine inspiration of scripture before being allowed to edit, whereas I do seem to recall that being a requirement at Theopedia. (Woops, obviously non-notable, I mean Theopedia.) The same title at Theopedia would indeed include an appeal to authority, as I'm sure readers and writers at that site would confirm.

But, in the end, I actually agree with you, Griswaldo, because we cannot assume readers know that the text and language of Genesis are very precisely defined, and there is little room for interpretative variation at the sentence level. Debates about biblical interpretation are normally about abstractions, rather like Wiki debates about article titles! Is Genesis 1 science? Is it myth? Is it true? How many people wrote it and when? Which parts were written by which people? Arguments about what it actually says are much more tame, except where those are perceived to be decisive in establishing more abstract matters of interpretation.

Since readers can't be presumed to know this about Genesis, many educated people will assume Genesis is somewhat vague with plenty of different ancient versions. Of course, that is an exceedingly long way from the abundantly documented facts. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not always being entirely clear. I'm not sure we're on the same page ... let me try again. The fact that Bob can change his mind is a great way to get at this. When Bob does change his mind we can authoritatively change our statement "According to Bob ..." The problem with a text is that the text never changes its mind while people interpreting the text do. In other words we will always be talking about "Creation in Genesis according to interpreters of Genesis" (or according to biblical scholarship if indeed our sources are that narrow). If the entry presented the text of the narrative itself in its original Hebrew only then perhaps we'd have "Creation according to Genesis". Does that make sense? Let's compare this to the U.S. Constitution. There is really no such thing as "According to the U.S. Constitution", though from the rhetoric of politicians and activists one might believe there is. There can, however be endless "according to person (or group) X, the Constitution ...". Authoritatively, in terms of U.S. law, we can say "According to the Supreme Court, the Constitution ...". Like those interpreting scripture the Supreme Court may change its interpretation of the Constitution, which it does, but the constitution itself does not change its mind. One could say that amendments to the constitution are an exception to this but they are not and if anyone wants an explanation of why I'd be happy to provide it (but I hope it isn't necessary). So my point is that I really think that we ought to refrain from "according to" when not referring to beings that are widely considered to have agency. "According to God" is much more acceptable to me than "according to the bible", for instance. That is not because I believe in a "god" with agency (which I don't), but because a whole lot of people do in fact believe in such a God. Those are just my two cents.Griswaldo (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I should add that I do not in any way mean that "According to God ..." is acceptable as a title for this entry. I just mean the premise is more acceptable because within certain contexts and to certain people God has agency.Griswaldo (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Griswaldo -- I'd agree with your statements here, but I think we'd both agree that "Creation according to God" would be a poblematic title as well, even if we had someone claiming to be God to use as a reference.EGMichaels (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be very problematic and that's why I added the disclaimer.Griswaldo (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks a bunch for such a cogent retort!

I completely agree with something you wrote, but first I want to defend an option that is not my preference.

• according to prep.

1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.
2. In keeping with: according to instructions.
3. As determined by: a list arranged according to the alphabet.

American Heritage Dictionary

I would have thought "according to Genesis" meant "as stated or indicated by Genesis".

The text intended by the name Genesis would have to be the text normally given that name, which just happens to be a text that scholars don't think has changed much over 2,000 years. A fundamentalist might make a scary neighbour, but someone who flogs himself for misspelling a word of his sacred text is just the kind of guy you want as a photocopier. And history seems to have borne that out according to text critics of all flavours. So, is Genesis a well-defined term (unlike Bible or Apocrypha)? I think so, I think we know exactly which Hebrew words we're talking about.

Back to "as stated or indicated by": Genesis states bara Elohim ("God created"), but does it indicate ex nihilo? Good question! Genesis states b'reshit bara Elohim, but does this state "In the beginning God created" or "At the beginning of God's creation"? Another good question!

I still think the title "Creation according to Genesis" implies a perfectly good, neutral question: "What does Genesis state and indicate regarding creation?" It states a fair bit and indicates a lot more, like any text, and indeed there are different readings with relative merits and demerits available for us in the documented reflections of people who are familiar with a lot of specialist issues.

The title does assume Genesis talks about a creation, but it is true all scholars agree that it does.

I still think the problem, if there is one, is with the word "creation". It's not as though we know there has to have been a creation, perhaps the Big Bang just happened, no cause, it just happened, just as matter–anti-matter particle-pairs spontaneously occur in vacuums. Nothing we know of "creates" them, and why should it?

The "sanity check" for me is trying "The creation according to Genesis". Now that would really express a PoV.

Now, here is where I completely agree with you.

'The problem with a text is that the text never changes its mind while people interpreting the text do. In other words we will always be talking about "Creation in Genesis according to interpreters of Genesis" (or according to biblical scholarship if indeed our sources are that narrow). If the entry presented the text of the narrative itself in its original Hebrew only then perhaps we'd have "Creation according to Genesis". Does that make sense?' [Griswaldo, Appendix to Wikipedia, The Foundation, 2010.]

You bet that makes sense, to me anyway!

Yes, only the Hebrew truly gives us precisely what Genesis is saying, whatever that might be. Only that Hebrew text is truly "Creation according to Genesis".

But Wikipedia is not about that kind of truth or that kind of knowledge. Wikipedia is about the first kind you mention.

All we can report is what the best interpreters say is the sense of the text. Or, in your words, the substance of the article can only be:

"Creation in Genesis according to interpreters of Genesis"

Likewise, Nuclear physics means "Nuclear physics according to reliable sources".

It is a convention here to drop "according to reliable sources" from article titles.

What, then, should we call this article? ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I think something I stated in the first post got lost as I tried to explain what I meant more thoroughly. I think the most common usage of "according to" is akin to definition number one above, though even then I also think we're interpreting that definition slightly differently. Does a text really "state" or "indicate" anything? I'd say no, only beings with agency state or indicate anything, but I think that's where we may disagree (I believe rather strictly that signs are arbitrary and meaningless in the absence of human action, mental or otherwise). The notion that the Bible, or the Constitution for that matter, can state something on its own which then can be claimed as "authoritative" has been (and is) a very seductive notion in Western history. It is seductive in no small part because of the very fact that a text cannot change it's mind. If we can authoritatively lay claim to the meaning of a text like a national Constitution or the Jewish or Christian Bible then we can tap into the authority granted by the power that sanctifies that text. I would argue that even if we disagree about whether or not a text can "state or indicate" anything we cannot dismiss the fact that in practice, in human history, this is often what happens. To say "according to" a fixed text is to claim ownership of its power, and usually this is done only when someone wants to exclude the views of others, or otherwise adjudicate their own behavior towards others. I know this sounds like a stretch but I feel that with options like "Creation in Genesis", etc. we don't even need to get within a hundred miles of these types of associations. "Creation in Genesis" or "Genesis creation narrative" are my preferences personally.Griswaldo (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, and building off of something else you wrote, I think when we don't have "according to" in an article title it is, to me anyway, always implied that the content of the article is "according to someone(s)". When we interject "According to Genesis" it is as if "Genesis" itself trumps these otherwise implied someones. "Creation in Genesis" would not require us to state "according to ..." anyone, and that's why we don't need article titles like "Gravity according to physicists".Griswaldo (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Valid points. I've changed my support to neutral for "Creation according to Genesis". But I think "Creation in Genesis" is poorly phrased. "Genesis creation narrative" is more explicit, and has all the benefits that "Genesis creation myth" had without the problems it has. So far, no one has said anything to indicate that it could be problematic in any way. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think somewhere I read claims that "Genesis creation narrative" was not a common phrase in scholarship, but that claim is patently false. Variants using "creation narrative" are slightly more common in google scholar than variants using "creation myth". "Creation story" gives many more hits than either but I think "narrative" is preferable for other reasons.Griswaldo (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for such a clear presentation of your philosophy and sociology of language!

Ah yes! You and I agree regarding the current issue, but would be pushing one another on others.

Briefly, to meet your openness with my own, I value authorial intention above reader response.

Perhaps our focus in life pushes us to learn more about different sides of the same abstract issue.

Your approach strikes me as more demanding to learn and apply and generally more useful.

I concede, people can and do appropriate texts for their own purposes.

This can be done responsibly and pro-socially, but is typically the opposite.

On the other hand reflective listening, understanding authorial intention, can also be pro-social and useful.

I'm a student of dead voices, more interested in comprehending than evaluating, just an interpreter.

Perhaps one day I'll grow up and dare the risky thing of evaluating: praising the pro-social and condemning the anti-social.

I don't trust myself yet, though. How do authorial intention and reader response address the current topic?

I think, although this article must be titled and aim first at authorial intent, I think it can extend to reader response and evaluation.

There are a goodly number of scholars who read Genesis 1 as intending to promote human exploitation of the environment, for example. There are other criticisms of its ethics, especially if Genesis 2-3 are considered. Who cares if the science of Genesis 1 is out of date, if its ethics is out of date ... and millions still follow those ethics!!!

I'm not pursuaded by those critics, we agree about what Genesis actually says, but we evaluate it differently.

I hope what I'm saying shows that I hear what you are saying Griswaldo.

You're the first I've seen in my short time here to raise this important aspect of the article. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that we need to step back and ask a simple question. The question is NOT "do notable and reliable sources use the phrase?" Quite obviously notable and reliable sources can be found for all of the phrases.

However, a much better question is: "do notable and reliable sources REJECT the phrase?" Any title that is not explicitly rejected by notable and reliable sources is allowed. Any title that includes a term which is explicitly rejected by notable and reliable sources should be disallowed.

So,

1. Creation according to Genesis
2. Genesis creation myth
3. Biblical creation
4. Genesis creation narrative
5. Creation in Genesis
6. Biblical creation myth
7. Genesis creation history
8. Genesis creation truth

While there are many notable and reliable sources that will insist this narrative is myth (and I personally agree with them), there are other notable and reliable sources that explicitly reject that characterization.

I'm sorry, but no matter how much we may personally like a particular characterization -- if there are notable and reliable sources that explicitly reject it, we as Wikipedia editors must bow to the sources.

We may think we are important here, but we are only yeomen.

I'll add that this works FOR us as well as AGAINST us. While we cannot impose our view that this is myth (because notable and reliable sources reject it), we can be happy that other views of truth or history cannot be imposed on us.EGMichaels (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll repeat my earlier observation that the term "myth" is similar to the term "cult". Both terms may be used responsibly in scholarly works, but a general audience is likely to read the term(s) as demeaning the subject(s) veracity.
"Narrative" seems unobjectionable but superfluous.
"Biblical" greatly broadens the scope in distracting ways, such as John 1:1.
Strong Suport: Creation in Genesis --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I support any of those options that does not include the word "myth" as it is misleading. --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've changed my mind a little. I can see the arguments for the "narrative" title, and I've actually looked into it, and the only other "X creation myth" article I can find is Sumerian creation myth, with the other fanciful relgious stories being either sections of larger mythology articles or labelled as "cosmology" or the like. Unfortunately, I can't think of a new title for Sumerian creation myth that would match the renaming of this article, but I'll set my mind to it as and when it happens, since we must, per WP:NPOV, not give additional credence to Judeo-Christian mythology over the Sumerian tales from which it was cribbed. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about the title 'Creation Myth',

but it is preferred to 'Creation Story' which would imply total lack of any fact. At least 'myth' implies some possible remote basis in fact--and this is more than it deserves from a purely scientific PoV (a compromise). This will have to remain imperfect--for now. When that which is perfect comes along, that which is imperfect shall be deleted and replaced with the perfect--right? Science must remain true to its erection of 'testable' hypotheses and rigorously tearing at and modifying them. Faith must remain true to the mothers/fathers History as brought down from the past--it is our only communication from then. I am a neo-anarchist and am definitely not a believer in majority (nor committee) rule of anything. These two opposing PoV need to remain separate. To mix them, ends up in hodgepodge. At worst (from a traditional faith PoV) a scientist should be agnostic--God hasn't been disproven, and how would we even form a testable hypothesis for a negative proof? Atheism is an opposing belief (faith), based on less truth, for the purpose of obscurantism. Atheism is a mean spirited 'religeous' concept intended to be devilish. God, however, is in complete control and affects that every roll of a die, every Powerball Lottery Drawing and every genetic mutation is completely random--what would we do and where would life be, if it weren't so? Hallelujah! Mouselb (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Narrative 1

@lisa. I sourced this. It's also sourced in Wenham and easily a hundred other references. In the first narrative creation is by divine command, God "says" and it then "is". Each day's creation is preceded with God's announcement "let there be". And in the second creation narrative God "forms", like a craftsman. In the second, he molds, he breathes into the nostrils, removes a rib and closes the wound. But in the first he creates by summoning into being. This creation by imperative rather than craftmanship is viewed as a significant feature of the first creation story. So if you dispute this what are your sources? Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, and I acknowledge that this isn't a valid criterion for Wikipedia, it's factually untrue:

1:1 God created the heavens and the earth

1:7 God made the firmament

1:16 God made the two great lights

1:21 God created the great sea-monsters, etc.

1:25 God made the beast of the earth, etc.

1:27 God created Man in His own image

There are plenty of direct statements of God creating/making, including the first verse, which most sources see as a summary followed by details. In the second place, I'd be happy to cite you any number of works of Jewish scholarship which are clear on the subject that God did not "summon" creation, but created. Will you give me problems about these sources the way Cush did? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, God created-but how? The how the creation was accomplished in the first narrative is by God calling it into being and form. Right? God didn't "plant" a garden, or sedate Adam and pull out a rib, or mold the dust as in Genesis 2. And as you know, we do rely on sources here, not editor say-so, so if you dispute a sourced description you should furnish sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What you wrote doesn't say that God created anything by means of speech. It says that He "summoned" the creation of things. That's an awfully odd turn of phrase, and one which isn't backed up by the text or any number of rabbinic sources on the subject. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you want to elaborate on the idea of God creating by going into how it was done, that really belongs in the body of the article, and not in the lede, particularly when there are conflicting opinions. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I thought summoned had pizazz -- but Lisa's probably right. Some flair may not be appropriate. But good style!EGMichaels (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Again-"summon" is the exact word used in the source. So far you've disputed it but haven't offered a source. I wrote what the source said and until you offer contrary sources there is no "dispute" to consider here. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Professor -- that's an odd request. Almost NO sources use the word "summon" (which is why I thought it had pizzaz). Do you really need a source that says "create"? Heck, blindfold yourself, throw a dart in a library, and open any book on Genesis at random and you'll probably see "create" instead of "summon." Or do you need a book that says, "This was not a summoning." Since "summon" is such a unique word here, it would be really hard to find someone denying it. Besides, it's a clever way to say "called into being." While I don't agree with Lisa that the word is "inaccurate" I'd have to side with her that it's a little odd. I personally like it, but if an editor objects to so odd a term (even a lovely term as that) we should probably err on the side of the mundane.EGMichaels (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not an "odd request" given the reasons given for lisa's revert were that it isn't true, that it can't be backed up by the text, and there were "conflicting opinions" on this. def summon: "to call upon to do something specified; to call for the presence of, as by command, message, or signal; to call into action; rouse; call forth". If "summon" is too "pizzazy" let's hear some alternatives. But I've already shown that "summon" is perfectly suitable, and neither is it particularly "odd". The poorly disguised I just don't like it revertitis has been chronic in this article, while hundreds of more serious problems dealing with properly sourcing claims, copyright infringements, and content errors go ignored. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't clarified whether you are requesting ANY source that uses ANY other term (such as "create") or rather a source that somehow managed to take enough notice of the wildly improbable (though not inaccurate) term "summon" in order to actually reject it. It's like finding a source that says, "God did not conjure" or "God did not channel" or some other unusual word. Either one of those would be an odd request. As for "I don't like it" -- I've repeatedly said that "I DO like it." Nevertheless, it's an unusual term, and when challenged should revert to a more mundane term. Wikipedia isn't about cramming any cool term we can shoehorn in there, but rather to be clear. We sanity check each other for clarity, and Lisa did you the favor of a sanity check. Please return the favor by being... mundane.EGMichaels (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Lisa: "I'd be happy to cite you any number of works of Jewish scholarship which are clear on the subject that God did not "summon" creation, but created." Let's stop moving the goalpost, okay? Enough's enough. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not moving the goal post. Her wording was quite clear: she has reams of sources that God "created" instead of sources that say God "summoned."EGMichaels (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are you running interference on this? She defended her revert by saying that she would be happy to cite any number of works clear on the subject that God did not "summon" creation. So let's have them. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not running interference -- you are deliberately "misunderstanding" her words. I say "deliberate" now that you continue to press it even after I've made it clear what she meant (which should have been obvious). Please drop it; you are creating noise on the talk page and interfering with collaborative editing.EGMichaels (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think he's running interference because he has more tolerance for tendentious demands than I do.

• Wayne D. Dosick, Living Judaism: the complete guide to Jewish belief, tradition, and practice, p.128: "What was the first act of creation? God said, 'Let there be light' (Genesis 1:3)"
• Martin Sicker, Reading Genesis politically: an introduction to Mosaic political philosophy, p.2: "All previous acts of creation are described as the direct consequence of straightforward and impersonal divine imperatives, such as Let there be light (Gen. 1:3), Let there be a firmament (Gen. 1:6), and Let the earth bring forth the living creature (Gen. 1:24). In all these instances, the utterance of the divine word itself constitutes the act of creation, although as is evident from the last citation, the act may be merely the initiation of an evolutionary process."

Recopying more would be just more of a waste of time. This is like a microcosm of the whole title debate. There are terms that are clear to everyone and not disputed. "Narrative", in the case of the title. "Created", in this case. There are idiosyncratic terms that may be present in a source, but are by no means the most common term. "Myth", in the case of the title. "Summoned", in this case. In both cases, those wishing to use the less common term accuse those wishing to use a normal term of "IDon'tLikeIt-itis", a violation of AGF which could easily be turned in the opposite direction. Just stop, okay? The vast majority of sources and the world read "Let there be light" as a statement which created light. Even those who don't believe it happened understand that this is what the text is saying. Why on earth you have to get all snippy about an odd term like "summoned" is beyond me. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Why am I still focused on "summon"? Because when editors revert with the reason "factually untrue" and it's like pulling teeth to get substantive backup to the accusation, the "discussion" drags on and on. And I am quite fed up with being lectured about "collaboration" from you, egmichaels. I have asked for the references to back up the revert, and if I can't have them unless I bug and bug then any failure to "collaborate" certainly isn't mine. So Lisa, please explain how your own reference disputes my edit? It says creation takes place "as the direct consequence of straightforward and impersonal divine imperatives". "To issue an imperative" is as clear a synonym for "to summon" as one can find. So if you don't like summon because it's "odd" (given you've abandoned the "untrue", "disputed", or "can't be backed up" excuses in favor now of this one) what word do you like better? We need something to describe the "manner" of this creation because it, as well as God's series of declarations that each day's creation was "good", are distinguishing features of the first narrative. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

<---The question of how God creates is something you can discuss in the body of the article. If you want. Personally, I think you knew from the start that using the word "summoned" would cause problems, and you did it anyway. Genesis says God created things. You want to say that He only "summoned their creation". One of the sources I brought says explicitly that the command was the act of creation. Not a summons for creation, but the act itself. If you have a source that disagrees (and I haven't read your source, so I have only your word that it does and that this isn't an idiosyncratic reading on your part), then we have conflicting sources. Which can be dealt with in the body of the article. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Why would I anticipate that it would "cause problems"? There is nothing wrong with it - I don't have just one source, I've provided a dozen that use the very term itself, and even the reference you furnished unequivocally supports it. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't have friends arguing like this. Can I break the deadlock with an alternative? How about using the term fiat-fulfilment.

• "The full two-register cosmology comes to expression in the fiat-fulfillment format, which is the basic structure of each of the six day-stanzas. While the 'let there be' is uttered at the upper register, the 'and it was so' occurs at the lower register."

— Meredith Kline, "Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony", Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 48 (1996): 2–15.

Please shoot me instead of one another. Alastair Haines (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the constructive suggestion. If "summon" is objected to as too odd, though, I think we'd have to agree "fiat-fulfillment" is somewhat more so. Maybe just "fiat"? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How about just "spoke"? That's basically the same as what Professor seems to mean by "summoned" without the pre-existent connotations that Lisa (and orthodoxy!) wishes to avoid. Every source I know of grants that "God said." Well -- "God spoke." Granted, it's not as cool a word as summoned, but it's non-controversial and easy to understand.EGMichaels (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How about just "created"? Up above, the prof said, "Yes, God created-but how?" So even he agrees that created is correct. And since there's a dispute in the sources as to "how", the question of how doesn't belong in the lede. EGM, it's the same argument you've used here about the title. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

He he, yes I'll keep fiat-fulfilment to my writing off Wikipedia (mostly).

Fwiw, I think "summon" is a great word to capture the idea of words causing something to come into existence.

However, I really do appreciate that in ordinary usage a "demon is summoned" or the boss "summons" you to her office.

Since the idea of pre-existing material is contested in scholastic discussion of Genesis, and ordinary usage of "summon" tends to evoke the idea of calling something that already exists to be present before you, I can really appreciate the objection.

"Summon" is used by sources. Its a good word. Is it the only word?

I'm not going to take sides here. I think you're all spot on! Alastair Haines (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've started looking at the prof's sources:

I checked the first two, and failed to find the term "summoned" being used. I don't see any reason to continue through them. If he wants to demonstrate his point, he can include the text here. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

First source, printed page 85: "On days 1 - 3 God performs three acts of division and separation that summoned into existence of the created order." Second source, printed page 2: "Distinct to this telling, however, are two significant variations. [In the first variation] The incomparable ease with which God summons the sun, moon, stars, water, sky, earth and life into existence and that God does so without the aid or counsel of any other being marks this God as incomparable and unique." Do you want me to keep going? They all say the same thing, in so many words. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC) On second though, let's finish this. The third source printed page 80 (speaking of allusions in the Book of Baruch to Genesis creation)"Descriptive accounts of Creation--The first example, 'You summon the coming of times and they stand before you' alludes to the scene of the Genesis creation account." The fourth, printed page 24: "As God's 'speech creature', the world is evoked by this summoning God who will have his way." The fifth, printed page 462, "This primal universe contained the potential that he summoned into actuality by his creative word and so made heaven and earth, as we read in Genesis 1:1." Next, printed page 7 (speaking of 2nd and contrasting to 1st narrative) "In this more vividly anthropomorphic account, God, now called YHWH 'Elohim instead of Elohim as in this first version, does not summon into being from a lofty distance but ... works as a craftsman, fashioning, ..." Next, printed page 107, the fifth day: "At the same time God summons into existence birds..." Next, printed page 218: "The classic presentation of God's creative word is found, of course, in Genesis 1, where God's word of command (note the language ... 'summon' [qara']. Next, "Out from this, God summons order, thus creating the universe." Next, "God summons the cosmos into being --systematic and planned separation of elements and production of distinct life -forms —by divine word, speech" Next, "A reading from Genesis !:1-15...Earth waits beneath the waters below and, at God’s summons, Earth emerges from the waters like a child at birth and then, at God’s command, brings forth all the fauna and flora on our planet." That should be all of them. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Definition #8 (of 8) in the OED for the verb to summon: "To call into existence; to call forth." The term is clearly being applied within its scope of meaning. However there are 7 other meanings presented prior to this one in the OED and I wonder if, in the spirit of the encyclopedia, it wouldn't be better to use terminology that is semantically equivalent to the intended meaning but not any of the unintended ones.Griswaldo (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously. "God performs three acts of division and separation that summoned into existence of the created order." This source describes a summoning which occurred as a result of God's acts of creation. That's not the same as God summoning creation. Such an equation is a misreading on your part, or at the very least OR.

For the second source, you very disingenuously omitted the sentence just previous: "Instead of creation as the result of a cosmic battle requiring great effort, the God of the Torah creates simply by issuing an effortless command: 'Let there be.'" Again, the primary statement of the source is that God creates. And that act of creation (the command) summons things into existence. Which is the opposite of what you wrote.

And no, I won't go through the rest of them. Those two alone suffice to show that you are taking words out of context. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a good point here. Per definition 8 above, when summon is being used it refers to the notion that God summons that which is created and not creation itself. Summon and create are synonyms here. It wold be like saying that God creates creation. Unless of course by "creation" you mean not the act of creating but that which was created, which is possible, but I would say stylistically awkward and not obvious to the reader.Griswaldo (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick question -- how are you finding these sources? You're pretty good at it and I'd like to be able to do the same. Are you finding them on Amazon.com or something? Googlebooks? I've never used googlebooks, but whatever you're using I'd like to use it too.EGMichaels (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

@Lisa. "God summons the creation of the heavens and the earth" is so freaking close to "God summons the sun, moon, stars, water, sky, earth and life into existence" that it's spooky (I found that source after my edit. The source I used was Alter's Genesis)

@EGMichaels-I found all those with google, google books most of them.

@Griswaldo-I'm not fixed on "summon". We're only still stuck on it here because Lisa's busy now casting aspersions on the work I've done to justify her hasty revert. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>Back the the issue. @Lisa. All creation stories have a "create". It's a given. So in the interest of developing some substantive ~content~, we typically say more than this. We try to describe the process when we describe the creation story. It's commonly a creation from a god or gods, and sometimes creation takes place from hatching from an egg, sometimes it's the result of the gods mating, sometimes the elements are mingled like soup and coalesce into form, sometimes it's an emination, all these are different means to "create". The significant aspect in this creation account is that it was "commanded" into existence. We need to say this somehow. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not in the lede, we don't. If you want to discuss whether God's command created things or whether God's command summoned the creation of things, do so. In the body of the article. It requires more than a simple pithy statement. The lede is for simple pithy statements.

You're standing on ceremony now. You don't like that I "cast aspersions". I apologize for casting aspersions. Will you drop it now? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies.". The creation stories need better descriptions in both the body and the lead. It's on my ToDo list anyway. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This one isn't notable. The sources you brought don't even address it as such. Just because an author uses a phrase like "summoned" instead of a simple "created" doesn't mean that anyone is arguing with the fact that it's created. Except you. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody, including me disputes "created". "Creation myths" always involve the "create" part. But I said that. And the idea of the "summoning", if not the word itself, is notable. You dispute it-though so far you haven't offered any sources that do. But then there are disputes over ex nihilo and "pithy" or not, it too warrants mention in the lead. But you and I aren't going to agree but I'm content to wait for broader input while I work on other areas. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Henry Ward Beecher

I'm perplexed by the recent addition of information on Henry Ward Beecher in the section entitled "Creationism". The source uses Beecher as an example of religious liberals who interpreted Genesis as myth, allegory, etc. Beecher's POV is in line with the mainstream POVs presented in the main sections of the entry. Just because Beecher appears in a Science reference work within the context of discussions about creationism doesn't make it apropos to the creationism section of this entry, especially when Beecher's POV is in line with mainstream (non-literalist, non-creationist) interpretations of the passage in question. I caution against building the "Creationism" section up any further as this entry is not about the history of that controversy but about a religious text that is otherwise interpreted in a very different way. Let's think outside the culture wars box here.Griswaldo (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Additionally the phrasing on Beecher is misleading, though I'm sure that was not intentional. The source states that Beecher "eagerly abandoned what he regarded as obnoxious traditional doctrines such as the Fall and Original Sin (Genesis 3), for an optimistic evolutionary anthropology ..." I'm not sure what abandoning the doctrine of the Fall meant to Beecher in entirety, but it certainly doesn't seem right, without another source to back it up, to then place his evolutionary anthropology as being expressly post-Fall of Man with a link to the Christian doctrine of the Fall to boot. Let's be a bit more careful here.Griswaldo (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was misleading. Hopefully it's better now. The problem with the original section is that it treated all creationism as a literalist reading of the genesis creation, and that's incorrect. There are different shades of literalist creationism, and then there are non-literalist creationists (special creation of the soul, for example) whose creationist theology relates differently to the Genesis passages. I used a better example from Beecher than the Fall (he has many, and and his "Fall" ideas would "open" things up beyond the creation account more than is ideal there). Professor marginalia (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There are still others (i.e. Neo-Orthodox) not dealt with, but probably too confusing for the general reader.EGMichaels (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, creationism is not limited to Genesis literalists. This is a widely held misconception but the encyclopedia shouldn't perpetuate it. But all these forms of creationism I included did develop in large part as a response to the scientific developments. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The new text is quite clear. Thanks for that. However I'm still unsure of its placement in this entry. The entry is not about the history of creationism. Also, while I suppose you have sources that includes Beecher's interpretation of Genesis within some type of "creationism" (yes?) I'm quite uneasy with this designation because it implies that any interpretation of Genesis (whether from the 19th or 3rd century, etc.) that assumes divine creation is real (whatever that means ahistorically -- I say next to nothing) belongs under the subheading "creationism". This renders the term virtually meaningless within the context of this entry. Creationism of the sort that includes some amount of biblical literalism is meaningful precisely because it does not fit into the mainstream historical trajectory of the interpretation of these passages. Such is not the case for Beecher. Whether or not we agree about these later points I still have a hard time understanding why this has been included and why under this heading and not some other.Griswaldo (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Should we rename the entire section "Theology and Judaeo-Christian interpretation", "Creationism"? This seems to be implied by the argument for Beecher's inclusion.Griswaldo (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't create the section, I repaired and improved it. And I'm not responsible for the definition of creationism either, but the idea that it refers or is notable only to "non-mainstream" religious thought is absolutely untrue. Beecher would be an evolutionary creationist-he believed that the soul was separately and divinely created and that the method God chose to perform the creation was a progressive form of evolution. Whether or not he should be "labeled" a creationist is not significant--but what is significant is the way he incorporated the new Darwinian theory into his theological interpretation of both an historical, factual creation and the theology as revealed in Genesis creation scriptures (and other scripture as well). I think it's useful to include him because he's repeatedly mentioned in the context of the kind of "schisms" that developed in Genesis interpretation in response to Darwin. In 4 or 5 at least he's described as the most influential theologian to lead the liberal theological accommodation of evolution to Genesis interpretation. If you think a better label might be something about interpretations following the advance of science that would be fine with me. I don't think it should merge with the "Judaeo-Christian" simply because this response to Darwin etc on Genesis interpretation is extremely notable in and of itself. Interpretations changed for other reasons as well, such as in the case of the documentary hypothesis, but I think these creationists described in the section now directly address the discrepancies between scientific understanding and the details given in the text itself. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that creationism only refers to "non-mainstream" religious thought. I said that, "[c]reationism of the sort that includes some amount of biblical literalism is meaningful precisely because it does not fit into the mainstream historical trajectory of the interpretation of these passages." Creationism as you suggest it is commonly defined apparently includes virtually all "mainstream religious thought" coming out of the history of Christianity and Judaism. I don't really see the utility of this definition when what we're really writing about is the historical period after Darwin and specifically the encounter between biblical interpretation and biological theories of evolution. The relationship between theology and this passage is placed in a more general section on theology and interpretation no matter what developments in Western intellectual history may have dramatically influencing this theology, but when theology and interpretation relates to Darwin somehow it naturally belongs in its own section? I'm not sure I understand that. I will concede that it is of historical significance and perhaps the answer is not to merge but to split even more. But if that is the case your suggested rename for the section is better because it much clearer. The inclusive definition of creationism isn't meaningful in this historical context in my view.Griswaldo (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right that the broad scope of creationism itself isn't of much interest here-what is would be noting the set of interpretations that came about as a consequence of modern evolution and science. Genesis creation and Noah's ark are the two primary areas where we continue to see these big religious and social clashes over the texts say and what science says, and the Ark article addresses the related interpretive issues there as well. Let's get a better title then - I'll think on it myself. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Any luck. I haven't solved this one myself but I think we're pretty much in agreement. I might have been a bit extreme in my initial arguments on this, but in the end I do agree that it is important but that we simply need to be accurate about reflecting the context and importance adequately. Thanks for thinking this through.Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll drop in two cents to this quality discussion. It is remarked upon in biblical studies and theological literature that both the theory of evolution and the documentary hypothesis challeged cosy consensus and assumptions regarding interpretations of Genesis that preceded them. Many contemporary scholars from faith communities consider Genesis itself to be unchallenged, but accept that rejecting or modifying prior interpretations is necessary. In my opinion, Creationists are important because they seek to keep old interpretations alive as the "natural reading" of the text. Leaving the physcial sciences aside for a moment, if the Creationists were right in their linguistic and literary arguments, then Genesis 1 would be literal, after all. That would be good news for secular humanism, because Genesis 1 would be falsified.

I'm sure what I'm saying is not new to either Griswaldo or the good Professor. What I would like to see in the Creationist section is a focus on summarizing Creationist arguments for the literal nature of the text. There are some excellent scholars in that tradition who challenge my own reading. It strikes me this is a literary article (all the more so under the title "creation myth"), rather than a Science v. Bible kind of article (without meaning to include due space where relevant).

Anyway, sourced examples of the "literalist" point of view is content I'd hope this article could contain. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The article should develop more the most notable of the various interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2 out there. In its current form, there's a bit of "flattening" even while many of the issues are touched on. It's probably in part because of the way the article is structured. Ideally literalism is more fully developed as a method apart from creationism-it's as old at least as Basil of Caesarea. I'm not sure I know what you have in mind though when you say creationist arguments for the literal nature of the text. Do you mean arguments that the literal is more accurate for Genesis creation? If so, there isn't much to say beyond what's already given in the quote there now. The strict literalism in today's creationism was actually born from the arguments and motivations from 19th millennialist eschatology, not so much creation in Genesis, and the arguments in post Darwin creationism that are peculiar to support for strict literalism of the Bible as a whole come more from that area. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been browsing this discussion [sic] and I've noticed at least an indecision whether to use the word 'summoned' or 'spoke'. The word 'spoke' (like talk/discussion) definitely implies PHYSICAL AUDIO EMANATIONS. Can you 'hear' me? If a tree falls in the woods without any medium to tranmit sound does it make sound--me thinks not. I vote for 'summoned', which at least allows for inaudiable communication/creation. From then on, alot of speaking goes on! The first few words from Biblical Genesis literally read, "In the scratch Gods created supermatter and matter." Gods from Hebrew/Aramaic 'Elohim' is always plural, regardless of how contemporary translations spin it. I think the 'how' is answered 'from scratch'. Will you be including the 'eighth day of creation'? Abraham was given the circumcision as a covenant with his creator with the promise of 'a new creation' the 'eighth day'. Mouselb (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Fall

The fall itself has its own spins. While to Christianity it is a problem, to Judaism it is part of the process of our becoming partners with God. A child has to individuate to become fully conscious. Thus, the fruit is entirely irrelevant as such. It is the command that makes this knowledge of good and evil. Note the similarity with the "before [Immanuel] knows the difference between good and evil" in Isaiah 7. All this is simply to say that the "fall" has its own scope and will need a good deal of work.EGMichaels (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word "myth" to debunk false notions

Our article Myth of the Flat Earth is devoted to debunking the idea the Medieval society generally believed in (or had returned to) the pre-scientific concept of the Flat Earth.

Ther the word "myth" is used in an article title specifically to connote the idea of a what Myth (disambiguation) calls:

• A commonly-held but false belief or a popular conception about a real person or event which exaggerates or idealizes reality

I suggest that we either change both titles to avoid appearing to taks sides on whether the ideas the two articles are describing, or acknowledge that our use of myth in Genesis creation myth is indeed intended to convey the idea that mainstream scholarship regards the Biblical account of creation as discreditable. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ed, couldn't agree with you more. If you read above this has been the subject of much debate. The counter argument to what you're saying is that the technical/academic definition of the word "myth" does not imply falsity. Read above for more details. NickCT (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

But we need not resolve two problems to resolve one problem. This Talk page is for this article; the other article has its own Talk page. And this sort of composite reasoning can be taken up at the WP:Village Pump. According to WP:TALK I think a Talk page is especially designed to be used to improve the one article associated with it. Bus stop (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I am opposed to the title "Genesis creation myth." It contains "spin." What is called for is a bland title that identifies the subject of the article. That was accomplished adequately by the previous title which was "Creation according to Genesis." Bus stop (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The other article should change its title, but I think its best to have that discussion over there. I do not like the current title here either, but not for any reasons related to the problems of that other article. Using "myth" in the popular sense should be discouraged across the board.Griswaldo (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've come to realize that "Creation according to Genesis" is also prejudicial. It implies that there was a creation, and this is how it went according to Genesis. Which is a problem for people who don't think there was a creation at all.

"Genesis creation narrative" fixes this problem without using the problematic term "myth". I don't think a single person has expressed any problem with the term "narrative". It's even more neutral than "story". - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Narrative is the most popular of all the choices in the table that presented all of the choices somewhere above. Of course a lot of people who have elsewhere in this discussion insisted on "myth" have not chimed in there. I'm personally comfortable with changing the title to narrative, especially given the more recent silence from the afore mentioned people, and then dealing with the fallout if there is any after that. Others may not agree but I just don't think the "we're silent now because this has been discussed to much" argument should prevent us from doing something productive about this.Griswaldo (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think narrative is acceptable, but I'd prefer something like "Description of Creation in the Book of Genisis". That avoids the somewhat obscure "narrative" word while not being prejudicial. NickCT (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

100% agreed on the title "Genesis creation narrative".EGMichaels (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The word "narrative" is perfectly neutral, even if other words might be better. But since "the best is the enemy of the best", I suggest we all compromise on narrative as in Genesis creation narrative. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The word "myth" accurately describes the Genesis story. You may as well create an article describing Tolkien's Silmarillion as a creation "narrative". The fact is that neither are accurate. Both are pure myth. They should be described as such. --rpeh •T•C•E• 22:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the discussion is not about removing the term "myth" from the main article. No one is suggesting that we stop calling it a creation myth in the entry, even in the open lines of the introductory paragraph. It is a discussion about the title only. There have been many arguments on this page that actually focus on the title only. The issue is not as simple as you think it is. Scholars do not often refer to this narrative as the "Genesis creation myth". That's simply fact, and that's one of the many arguments that have been made here.Griswaldo (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, and here's an example of the use of "myth" to mean "fiction". Is it any wonder that it appears to some editors as though there's a concerted effort to use prejudicial POV language behind the change of the article to "Genesis creation myth"?

This sort of argument can't be taken into account. The passages in the Silmarillion where creation is described certain is a creation narrative, but that's not even the issue. The issue is that there are those who want to use a charged term rather than a neutral one, because they find the prospect of neutrality in this case to be offensive. It's ludicrous. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The sequence of words "Genesis creation myth" is a contrivance. It is based, arguably enough, on the reference in some academic sources to Genesis as a "creation myth." It is a contrivance because one would not identify the subject matter in this article by that title unless one wanted to advance a very specific agenda. There is an activist spin to the title "Genesis creation myth" because it, more so than any other title under consideration here, rules out the possibility of literal veracity in the subject matter that is to be considered in the article. There is simply no cause for that in a title. There is ample space within the body of the article to refer to those sources that characterize the story under consideration as a "creation myth." There really is no argument as to whether or not reliable sources (some) refer to Genesis, chapters one and two, as a "creation myth." But it is gratuitous to hoist that one characterization up into the title. Genesis, chapters one and two, is also a story, a narrative, and an account. Those words (story, narrative, account) are far less committal on the question of whether the subject matter contained in this article is true or false or anywhere in-between. That is an advantage, because a title only has as its primary purpose the identifying of the subject matter of the article, not necessarily the characterizing of it in any particular way. Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of the Word myth is ignorant. I do not believe in creationism, but it is still ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.113.232 (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be in agreement on "Genesis Creation Narrative". When is it finally going to be changed? It would be so nice to be able to put all of this behind us, and focus on the article.Mk5384 (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I motion for a move request! Anyone second my motion? NickCT (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Seconded.Griswaldo (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

But please note that there appears to be a still active request above. I think the idea is that per that request there is consensus for "Genesis creation narrative" and we should be able to move forward with this.Griswaldo (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually someone needs to sort this out. On this talk page the move request appears open ended at the top of the talk page. On the move requests page it is specifically a request to go back to "Creation according to Genesis". What is the proper procedure here?Griswaldo (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Really the only "procedure" is that if consensus for a move is achieved, you request the move. Let me ask this, does anyone have a serious objection to moving the page to "Genesis Greation Narrative"? NickCT (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I would welcome the title change to "Genesis creation narrative." Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

At the very least you need to put together a clearly worded, legitimate WP:RFC narrowly targeted the potential change to this name. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I support "Genesis creation narrative". The common usage of myth implies falsity, and that is counter to NPOV. (Declaration of bias: I personally believe the narratives to be false.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

@Professor marginalia - Usually I'm all for RfCs. But I think in this case, we need not delay. There seems to be strong consensus for the "narrative" wording. It certainly seems less contraversial than the current wording. NickCT (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't one of the essentials of NPOV that "neither side" feels that the wording gives an advantage to the other side? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no measurement of a "strong consensus" yet. If you don't do the work to gauge it, I predict any change in the title will be reverted within an hour and trigger even more dust and noise in the edit warfare. This battle has been going on for a very long time. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Requesting a move to the consensus title of "Genesis creation narrative"

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. Ucucha 01:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Genesis creation myth → Genesis creation narrative —

After a great deal of discussing and debate, there appears to be a consensus that Genesis creation narrative is the most descriptive and NPOV title for this article. See and and . This consensus has been getting stronger and stronger over the past few days, and I think now would be a good time to move the page. And since it's been such a charged issue, I think the current lock preventing editors from willy nilly moving the page should be left in place. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This is the correct move. The current title is not a common phrase in scholarship despite the fact that most scholars do consider this an exemplary creation myth. There is no reason not to follow this lead and discuss the narrative as a myth in the entry without the non-standard title.Griswaldo (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support The current title clearly needs to be changed. It has been filled with controversy since a few quickly changed it a few months ago. Before that the article existed for years with normal discussion. I agree with this proposed title and it has a lot of support. SAE (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This seems to be a violation of WP:CENSOR and WP:NPOV. If "myth" is an inappropriate term for one narrative, because it is biased against the validity of the narrative, then it is by default an inappropriate term for all such narratives. And it seems that "myth" is the only term appropriate for some articles: Greek mythology etc. If this is an argument against the use of "myth" in general, it seems absurd, as the word "myth" is a neutral description of this sort of narrative. If it is an argument against the use of the word "myth" in this specific instance, it seems to be biased towards this "narrative" being more true than those which are labelled "myths", which seems both a violation of wikipedia policy and blatantly incorrect, in that it is a symbolic, metaphysical structure. Claritas (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that this term be removed from the entry. There is no censorship here. We are only discussing the title. There are several reasons to change it that have nothing to do with the general usage of the term "myth" and many of us have come to this as the best compromise because it satisfies pretty much everyone ... except perhaps those who have other non-academic reasons to prefer the term "myth". Academics do not prefer that nomenclature when referring to this narrative despite considering this a creation myth.Griswaldo (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Presumably consistency is desired - "creation myth" is used (although not as frequently as "creation narrative") to descirbe Genesis, and all other articles about such narratives use the term "creation myth". Claritas (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That is one of the many false, but understandable, assumptions people keep on making here. "Creation myth" is not used in the titles of similar articles at all. Please browse the "creation myth" category and see for yourself. "Creation myth" is used in a handful of cases and almost exclusively when referring to the "creation myth" of a civilization -- e.g. Sumerian creation myth or Mesoamerican creation myths -- and not when referring to a text -- e.g. Enûma Eliš or Völuspá. It is the current title that is inconsistent.Griswaldo (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Everyone seems to agree that the subject is a narrative. Any further specificity about what kind of narrative, or implications about its factual basis, need not be made in the title, and would serve no purpose whatsoever, but to endorse a POV about the subject. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Neutral title. The "myth" concept is fully explained in the article body. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Mr Collins in his concise dictionary "Myth: a story about superhuman beings of an earlier age, usually of how natural phenomena, social customs etc came into being" supports the current title. Abtract (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • But what is wrong with the proposed title? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong is that Creation myth, Greek mythology, Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Sumerian creation myth, Chinese creation myth, Pelasgian creation myth, Tongan creation myth and Mesoamerican creation myths would also need to be moved, to prevent prioritising Judeo-Christianity. Claritas (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see my answer to you above. Those are the handful of examples of a different type of entry -- or at least a different type of title (see Lisa's response below). An argument can be made for Pelasgian creation myth as of a similar type, but it, like this entry currently, is the exception and not the rule.Griswaldo (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct. The correct analogy would be from Chinese creation myth to Jewish creation myth. Or Christian creation myth. Genesis creation narrative is different. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If someone sincerely objects to the characterization of the tales of Zeus, Athena, etc as "myths" they are free to take that issue up on that article's talk page. Personally, I think the stories described in this article are laughably primitive nonsense, but there are many living, breathing, Wikipedia-reading- and -editing people who think I'm wrong, and they have weighed in here on this article, so I'm going to give them the respect due to any language-using child of (mitochondrial) Eve and support the use of neutral terminology. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• • And we don't look to the dictionary definitions of words that make up part of a phrase in order to chose our titles here as far as I can tell. There are other conventions like common use, and technical use, and neither is satisfied with the current title.Griswaldo (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed, Claritas has betrayed that he has taken an editorial position on the matter. The title should not take an editorial position. As far as "Greek mythology", that's the commonly used term. "Genesis creation myth" is not, except in certain narrow circles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

From the tag on the article, I thought that we were discussing potential NPOV-violation of the article's current title. Apologies. Claritas (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Myth" is a POV violation, as it takes an editorial position on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Before everyone else says it... There is a pragmatic difference between the dictionary definition of the word "myth" and the colloquial usage. Since titles are supposed to be "common usage", this would be tantamount to calling the story a flat-out fairy-tale. Since there is no proof for this, that would be NPOV. The authorship has been called into question but the story has no viable way of being tested so it can't be falsified. Padillah (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. 18:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support As a Creationist, I find this current title offensive and miseading so I support any change that removes this false accusation of myth. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Genesis creation narrative. The word "narrative" is perfectly neutral, and Wikipedia does not need to take the masses by the hand and lead them. Let the reader, rather than the title, decide what they think. Using words like "myth" is an attempt to lead the reader as opposed to their own ability to decide. --TK-CP (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support The article should be about the story itself, not it's validity (which has been falsified for quite some time). The article is dealing with the story, or narrative, that describes the myth, not the myth itself. The myth should be dealt with in the Christian creation myth where asserting that this is a myth is perfectly appropriate. This article doesn't talk about the myth, but the story in front of the myth. Padillah (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, not for nothing, but Christian creation myth redirects here. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You caught me, I didn't check that. That should be changed to a valid article discussing the various Christian creation myths and their place in the dogma. Not being a seminary student I have no idea how that article would get a start. Padillah (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia is written for the common man. The common man understands "myth" by its common definition (i.e. w/ implicit or explicit falsity). Wikipedia must be super careful not to endorse or refute any particular religous belief. Hence, "myth" language is innappropriate. "Narrative" sounds like a good NPOV replacement. NickCT (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. This looks like a token sop to the religon of most Wikipedians, in the face of common usage of the term "creation myth" to describe traditional attempts to explain origins such as are found in religious scripture. On the other hand as long as the redirect was maintained no real damage would be done, so my opposition to this token move proposal is also a token and I won't be losing sleep if I'm overridden by consensus. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • This phrasing isn't actually common. I see no reason why the redirect can't be kept, but IMO few people will try find this story by typing in those exact words anyway.Griswaldo (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support i think after months of bickering i think this is the closest we have come to consensus Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support. I am not convinced that the move is necessary, but it's not wrong, either. The only thing that really makes me hesitant is the prospect that once "creation myth" has been removed from the title, the absurd fight for removing it from the lead will start again. Hans Adler 20:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hans I don't think that will happen. As I see it many people who support this move do not support removing the description from the article or its introduction. However, should that happen I agree wholeheartedly that vigilant opposition is necessary.Griswaldo (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Consensus? This proposal doesn't even have a linguistic basis. The mythology article quotes Eliade, "In fact, many societies have two categories of traditional narrative — (1) "true stories", or myths, and (2) "false stories", or fables." English dictionaries do not define myth and narrative as interchangeable synonyms, nor creation myth and creation narrative, nor mythology and narratology, etc. Keahapana (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You apparently misunderstand the point of this proposal. You are absolutely correct that myth and narrative are not synonyms, and that is the very reason for this change. Whether Genesis contains a myth or not is disputed depending on one's POV and interpretation of that term, but that it contains a narrative (a less specific term) is something that seems undisputed. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I fully understand this proposal because I've been following this ongoing Genesis-creation-myths-aren't-myths thread for over a year. Since you apparently misunderstood, I'll reiterate. "I just don't like the word myth" arguments to rename one particular creation myth a creation narrative are at best intellectual dishonesty and at worst apologistic doublespeak. This monkey suit-like proposal is comparable with a few individuals who don't like the word cock contending that editors should violate basic WP policies to rename the cocktail, shuttlecock, and stopcock articles. Keahapana (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Genesis-creation-myths-aren't-myths thread"? Apparently you're not following the more recent discussions here in which several editors who don't like the current title are also not the least bit shy about the fact that these narratives are also myths. My mind is blown every time someone claims that they know all about what's going on here when their statements show little to no recognition of the many conversations that are ongoing in this discussion. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The battle has gone on far too long already. My opinion is based on policies and scan of references which I will describe more fully in the section below. Nothing less than a genuine commitment from editors to put aside their own personal opinion and defer to the body of sources and pertinent policies will move this forward. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could start? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Further note: This battle is such a mess, there are currently two requested move polls on the same page, one timed out without result but no uninvolved editors have shown to close it, and those sent here from village pump who aren't spending their lives on this page aren't well guided to where to leave comment, here or there. This mess is such a time sink. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I've given my reasons numerous times, in numerous places.Mk5384 (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support - "Genesis creation myth" may be used in some schools of thought, but they are clearly a minority among scholars. There is no overriding reason to use such an awkward and ambiguous term as "myth" just to appease this uncompromising minority, but there IS plenty of reason not to, for example something being more of an "external" term, the same one used by detractors of a given text or whatever, rather than being used as an analytical term, is usually a pretty good indication of manifesting a discernible "point-of-view" - which the current title does in a rather pushy manner. Also, whatever was the true intended purpose of this title, it does not seem to be achieving it - unless it were dissension. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support → "Genesis creation narrative". There is no way to make "myth" NPOV in this article. That should take precedence over other possible reasons to term this a myth. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - → "Genesis creation narrative" or "Creation in Genesis". Please note that I still fully support the use of "creation myth" as a scholarly term that should be introduced in the lead paragraph, just not in the article's title. Ἀλήθεια 02:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support - more people support this from all the options. In can always be changed again. ^rossnixon 03:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with what the professor says. However, with 15 for and 4 against, I think that "Genesis Creation Narrative" clearly has support. It's time to get this done so that we can all move on.Mk5384 (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support for reasons I have often explained before, mainly WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, and support a move to Judeo–Christian creation myth. I believe use of the word "myth" is supported, but the use of Genesis is inappropriate, as many readers may not (and need not) understand what "Genesis" is, and "Genesis creation myth" just doesn't work as a title. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 13:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that "many" readers "do not understand" what Genesis is. And I disagree therefore that, as you say, its use is inappropriate. That seems to be quite an exaggeration, do you really believe that? (for one, what is Judeo-Christian?) Imagine someone saying that the title for the article Thermodynamics (for example) is too difficult and therefore would should just use "Heating Power" for a title instead. You can see, that it just wouldn't work. SAE (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem for me is that "Genesis" is too unnecessarily specific, especially compared to those other creation myth article titles like Chinese creation myth, Pelasgian creation myth, and Sumerian creation myth. I think a title like Judeo–Christian creation myth is best to correlate with those other creation myth articles without giving any sense of bias in favor of the Christian creation myth. However, lacking any support for my alternative, I would support the current title over any excision of the term "myth". A title like "Genesis creation narrative" would clearly show favoritism for the Christian creation myth over the others mentioned. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 14:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Judeo-Christian creation myth was one of the many suggestions I made when I first found this discussion and I would support it wholeheartedly. However, ironically (given some of the arguments on this page), if we made that move the articles on the creation myths of most other living religious that will need to have title moves for consistency. See for instance Hindu cosmology.Griswaldo (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but there is already an article on Biblical cosmology, and cosmology refers simply to the study of the Universe as it now is and humanity's place within it, not how it is proposed to have been created. I think a comparison of Genesis creation myth to Hindu cosmology is unjustified—it's simply that no article has yet been written for Hindu creation myth specifically. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 14:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a fair point, and like I said I'm perfectly happy with "Judeo-Christian creation myth". I will say this though, it isn't the most commonly used name for this story, and its success as an alternative here will be severely impeded by that fact -- as is the currently discussed suggestion. Alternatives like Genesis creation story, Genesis creation account, Biblical creation story, etc. will always win the common use argument when tested in Google scholar or Google books. In fact the last one seems to get the most hits in google scholar at 661. That's Biblical creation story.Griswaldo (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I will oppose any attempt to rename this article as Judeo-Christian anything. I find the term personally offensive. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why it's offending you, it's an accurate description. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 00:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per Claritas. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Myth is a POV term, "Account", "Story", "Narrative" imply no opinion on the truth or falsehood of the story/narrative/account. Myth, however, implies that the proceeding myth is false. This automatically violates WP:NPOV (Unless reliable sources show that this is indeed a work of fiction, or false (Like Peter Popov having healing powers).Per NPOV it cannot be used in this title. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Personally, I think that the proposed title is a lot better than the current one. I do believe that the old title Creation according to Genesis may be a lot better. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Surprised this still hasn't happened yet.EGMichaels (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Genesis creation narrative appears to be no more or less common than Genesis creation myth or some other alternatives which were offered (in fact, a few of the others are more common), but there does appear to be a pattern wherein a comparatively high proportion of publications which use the phrase "creation narrative" advance the point of view that the myth/narrative is factual, see e.g., .

	Genesis creation narrative	Genesis creation myth	Percentages
General search	2,150	1,140	65% / 35%
1800–1899	26	3	90% / 10%
1900–1949	122	45	73% / 27%
1950–1969	88	84	51% / 49%
1970–1989	332	219	60% / 40%
1990–2010	628	606	51% / 49%
Adjusted total	1,196	957	56% / 44%
Results lost	954 (44.3%)	183 (16.1%)

For books found by Google Books and published in the last 20 years, Genesis creation narrative is about as common as Genesis creation myth. In addition, the relative prevalence of "narrative" as opposed to "myth" has decreased over time. (I must point out, of course, that this is an informal overview of data from one source and my statements reflect only initial impressions of patterns in the data; outright generalizations and conclusions about relative usage should not be made to support or oppose this move proposal in the absence of statistically significant results.)

Based on (admittedly brief) glances at hundreds of Google Books and Scholar results, I would support either Genesis creation myth or Genesis creation story as having common usage and appearing to be the prevalent forms in publications which approach the topic from a neutral, academic standpoint (i.e., without taking a position on the truthfulness or falsity of the creation myth/story); Judeo-Christian creation myth is an interesting proposal which I think merits further consideration, but I admit that it does not appear to be as common as other alternatives. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That being said, I do think that Genesis creation narrative is better than some of the other proposals, especially Creation according to Genesis and Genesis creation account. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we're getting warmer ...Griswaldo (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support, as I have previously stated, let's please change the title and move on. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NPOV and WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a journal read by theologians. "Myth" is not a term to be used in this context. --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I too am in support but, theologians are unlikely to use the term "myth". "Narrative" is also an obscure phrase when it comes down to it, much more likely to be found in the pages of a journal than something like, say "story". Just saying.Griswaldo (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support move from Genesis creation myth to Genesis creation narrative. I'll repeat my earlier observation that the term "myth" is similar to the term "cult": both terms may be used responsibly in scholarly works, but a general audience is likely to read the term(s) as demeaning. --AuthorityTam (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support as it's not wrong, merely inconsistent, pace all those wrangling about the gossamer thin division between cultural myths that survive through various sources and those which survive through a fairly consistent single source and just happen to have living believers. Although I'm loath to give in to the special pleading of Christians, this is clearly an argument that just won't go away, and it's preventing other important work on the article. I will, however, probably wander over to the other "X creation myth(s)" pages and try to get them renamed to "X creation narrative" for the sake of consistency at some stage. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Two points. 1) I resent being lumped in with Christians. 2) "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Just saying. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment — "Special pleading of Christians"? The principle has nothing to do with anything like that. The basic principles that are relevant to this discussion do not pertain to religious views. Number one issue is that article titles should be succinct. Number two is that article titles should not be in the business of characterizing subject matter in any way except if unavoidable due to disambiguation concerns. The subject of this article is identifiable by two words, I think: "Genesis" and "creation." Words like "story," "narrative," and "account" would merely fill out the title as concerns complete language. Title such as "Creation according to Genesis" does likewise. Bus stop (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I just want to point out Bus Stop, that he did give his support. So let's try not to berate him too much when he's helping us build consensus :) Cheers, SAE (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - and in the same conciliatory vein, I won't even try to defend my use of "special pleading", as this isn't the place for that argument. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is actually of interest that this got framed as "special pleading to Christians" because a fair number of the more ardent non-mythers here are Jewish if I understand correctly. Dr. Marcus I don't mean to quibble or pick on you, so please don't take offense that I'm pointing this out with reference to a phrase you used. But I've said this before and I just think that too many assumptions here are colored by culture wars discourses and very many well meaning interlocutors here don't even realize how much their own comments might be shaped by these discourses. This type of assumption is pretty high on the list.Griswaldo (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Griswaldo — Did someone indicate that they were Jewish? I must have missed that part of the discussion. I was just trying to argue (immediately above) that the reasoning behind some of my own argumentation did not even take religion into consideration. As I see it the disagreement pivots on what constitutes a good title. Good titles shouldn't include superfluous information. Good titles should only include the least information necessary to identify an article, unless disambiguation (with other articles) is a factor. Bus stop (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I mentioned it here, but I've certainly mentioned it before. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Gam ani.EGMichaels (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Mea culpa on "Christians". I meant "special pleading by adherents of extant religions". Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Weakened support -- a fitting word is unfortunately too "complex" (I believe the term was used previously) for those who are ignorant of the term. They will not be enlightened by learning the meaning of the word, instead they will be offended. I was hoping enlightenment would be possible. I'm seeing now it won't be. So turn it to "narrative" or whatever. There are more important battles. Auntie E. (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support with some change The word 'myth', although it has many meanings, can be interpreted as meaning a fictitious legend. Whether Genesis is fictitious/incorrect or otherwise is a matter of POV. As Wikipedia is neutral and objective, documenting notable point of views but not presenting them as fact, it would be best to avoid calling the creation story of Genesis a myth, seeing as that word can be interpreted as meaning a fictitious story. I see the opposition's point, however. 'Myth' can be synonymous with 'story', without indicating how true it is. But seeing as it is not limited to that definition, it should be avoided. I will mention, however, that this is probably only one of many articles with 'myth' in the title used to refer to a story some think or thought was true, and probably one of many more that use 'myth' in this way within the article. So while I feel this way about this article, I think it's just one small example of a much bigger issue.Kind Journalist (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support As many have mentioned above, use of the word "myth" is rather POV-ish. Sidenote: I wouldn't have a problem if you were to change the title to the Genesis creation story, which is an accurate descriptor for the written account, fits easily as a NPOV title, and best of all, does not imply fact nor fiction. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Narrative is certainly more neutral. Grantmidnight (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support, it works as a neutral title and would avoid the problems here. We can argue about the linguistic nature of the term "myth" for months, but a simple move here to a title which still represents the topic and is not seen as problematic by others is surely a better option. --Taelus (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The generic term is "Creation myth", and that article includes all creation myths, including the Christian one. Since Christian creation myth redirects here, it's disingenuous and non-neutral to claim that this is somehow different from all other religions' creation myths. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 17:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would you consider this the "Christian" creation myth first and foremost when clearly it was the Jewish creation myth long before Christianity ever existed? The current title is not inline with common use in scholarship. The "generic term" is not the most used in this case in scholarship. Are you suggesting we defy common academic usage in order to enforce our own rules of "fairness"? That seems to be against the very grain of this project.Griswaldo (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm merely going by the way the articles and redirects are set up. There is no Jewish creation myth page, yet there is a Christian creation myth page that redirects here. If this is first and foremost a Jewish creation myth, why no redirect? All I'm suggesting is that it is clearly non-neutral to make an exception for this one article, when all the other ones, as well as the main article, are called creation myths. Keep everything on a level playing field. That's the best way to maintain neutrality. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 22:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That is actually yet another misconception. Please browse the "creation myth" category. Most entries about creation myths do not have "creation myth" in the title. Only a handful do and all of those are of the following variety: "name of civilization" + "creation myth". There is an argument for renaming this "Judeo-Christian creation myth" but even then it would pretty much be the only one of its kind here. People need to stop and do some research before commenting here. I fully understand why these assumptions are made but they are actually misguided.Griswaldo (talk) 01:26, 28 April 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.

Policy regarding the move request above

While I'm for the move, I wanted to point out that two long standing policies stand in direct contravention to the change we are trying to make.

From WP;_SAY#Myth_and_legend

“ Myth has a range of formal meanings in different fields. It can be defined as a story of forgotten or vague origin, religious or supernatural in nature, which seeks to explain or rationalise one or more aspects of the world or a society. All myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that originated or used the myth. In less formal contexts, it may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing.

Formal use of the word is 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. For instance, avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean something that is commonly believed but untrue.

”

From Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion

“ 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 note worthy sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view (bolding added), or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about some particular terms can be found at words to avoid. ”

Fankly, I think these policies have to change for many of the reasons discussed above. Does anyone want to join me at the village pump to try and overturn these policies? NickCT (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the village pump? Also, there's another policy which goes against the ones you posted:

From Wikipedia:UCN#Common_names

“ Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic. Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name.

The following are examples of common names that Wikipedia uses as article titles instead of a more elaborate, formal or scientifically precise alternative:

• Bill Clinton (not "William Jefferson Clinton")
• Snoop Dogg (not "Cordozar Calvin Broadus")
• Hulk Hogan (not "Terry Gene Bollea")
• Venus de Milo (not "Aphrodite of Melos")
• Guinea pig (not Cavia porcellus)
• Nazi Party (not Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)

”

It's been argued by some that "creation myth" is the common usage in reliable sources, but this has been shown by EGM not to be the case. The argument on the side of using "myth" comes down to "that's the technically correct term." Which this policy explicitly rules out. Yes, Aphrodite of Melos is the technically correct name of the Venus de Milo. So what?

And it isn't clear that policies about religion are pertinent here. After all, the bulk of the article argues that the narrative is not what the religions which use it claim it to be at all. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:PUMP is the Talk page for Wikipedia itself.

Wikipedia naming policy effectively trumps the bits of the above-quoted guidelines that would seem to argue against Genesis creation narrative. For search and linking purposes, article names are to reflect common usage while remaining as neutral as possible. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In support of my oppose above, I submit the following analysis.

As per WP:COMMONNAME, "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article...Search engine testing sometimes helps decide which of alternative names is more common."

And Wikipedia:Article titles#Descriptive titles and non-judgmentalism "Where articles have descriptive titles, choose titles that do not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject."

And Wikipedia:Article titles#Considering title changes, "Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.

And most importantly, Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.

Both this and the current "Genesis creation myth" are descriptions, not the most commonly used name or label for this subject. I'm currently surveying the references cited to get an idea how they most commonly address it. I'm a third of the way through them (not all available to me or quickly searchable, but none so far have called it explicitly "Genesis creation myth" or "Genesis creation narrative".)

To gauge the most common usage via google hits, the following are my search results. Except for the category "all", these searches are all mutually exclusive, meaning searching for hits where one term of use is used while the others are not.

Google Hits "Genesis Creation"	All uses	Genesis creation (alone)	Genesis creation myth (only)	Genesis creation narrative (only)	Genesis creation story (only)	Genesis creation account (only)
Google web
Count	73,300	8,140	717	214	2,010	1,560
Percent		11.1%	1.0%	0.3%	2.7%	2.1%
Rank		1	4	5	2	3
Google Books
Count	10,100	5,460	405	572	2,320	1,620
Percent		54.1%	4.0%	5.7%	23.0%	16.0%
Rank		1	5	4	2	3
Google Scholar
Count	2,080	1,050	70	96	452	356
Percent		50.5%	3.4%	4.6%	21.7%	17.1%
Rank		1	5	4	2	3

Given these results so far, I'm inclining towards "Genesis creation", period, and unless the references themselves reveal a clear preference or unless a very very very convincing argument is made here to support some alternative, I won't support a rename of the article. Narrative is no better than myth, and we need to resolve this once and for all. It's become an absurd waste of time, imo. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

NOTE In the hits above "Genesis creation" is almost always an adjectival phrase and not a noun. It modifies nouns like "story", "account", or "myth". Can we use adjectives as titles? I don't think so.Griswaldo (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is relevant but WP:AVOID says "Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint." (Found here.) Bus stop (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Prof. M. I did a similar exercise recently and I agree that "creation narrative" is not the most common alternative. Your "Genesis creation" is quite similar to the "Biblical creation" idea Cush had. However, like "Biblical creation" I'm unsure that all these hits for "Genesis creation" actually pertain to the referent in question here. The best alternatives that clearly have these passages as their referent are "Genesis creation story" and "Genesis creation account", however, for whatever reasons, those two alternatives have been even less popular around here. "Genesis creation myth", as you can see, is by far the loser here btw (in Scholar and Books that is ... I'm not really sure how significant the web hits are at all). That simple fact is something that very few people here seem to either comprehend or be willing to own up to. I'd be much happier with Genesis creation story than narrative, but this is the best compromise I think anyone has found.Griswaldo (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)\

Also, Genesis 1:1–2:3 has always been an alternative. Not sexy but clearly neutral and more factual than any other alternative. Prof. M, I'd also like to remind you that as far as I can tell there was another title on this article for quite some time before a group of editors changed it to the current title. Ever since they did so there have been a ton of complaints on this talk page. You quote something stating that: "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." That cuts both ways you know. The old title would never have changed had not a group of editors debated it. I agree wholeheartedly that there are better things to do here, but I also believe that a vast majority of the editors partaking in this debate who want to move on from this also want the title changed. I'm not sure how interested the opposers are (you excluded), on the other hand, in doing actual work on this article.Griswaldo (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If you search for just "Genesis" (alone), it will yield an even greater number of hits! It's the nature of textual search functions that shorter phrases will tend to yield more hits; your results demonstrate nothing except that general mathematical principle in action. The problems with the perceived implications of myth have been articulated repeatedly. Story has similar problems: a perceived implication of fictionality. Now, I've posed this query several times in various forms, and no one has articulated an answer to explain their opposition: What is the problem with narrative? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what is the problem with "narrative"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I also suggest actually taking a look at the hits in, lets say google scholar, for "Genesis creation". Here is a link . Note that "Genesis creation" is an adjectival phrase here ... not a noun. It modifies nouns like, most commonly (surprise surprise) "story" and "account". I'm pretty sure we cannot make titles out of adjectives. Is that correct? That, once again, leaves Genesis creation story as the clear winner.Griswaldo (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem with "Genesis creation narrative." Has anyone articulated an objection to "Genesis creation narrative?" I would prefer "Genesis creation story" because "story" is a simpler word than "narrative." Bus stop (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well Prof. M's objection seems to be that it is barely more common in usage than "Genesis creation myth". It is a fair point. I would prefer "Genesis creation story" but as far as I can tell it gets even less traction than narrative. This is why IMO narrative might be better (because it works as a compromise).Griswaldo (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)"Story" is less formal, and it's also worth pointing out that Christian publications titled "Bible Stories" are typically "retellings" of the narratives in language that's easier for kids to understand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

@JasonAQuest-A search for just "Genesis (alone)" will give you Fall of Man, Noah's Ark, Cain and Abel, Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham/Isaac/Ishmael/Jacob/Joseph etcetera. If you find any other use of the term "Genesis creation" that isn't referring specifically to this very topic of "Genesis 1:2" or "Genesis creation myth" or "Genesis creation story" or "Bible creation story" please share it. There can't be many. I understand both the nature of textual search and the nature of the topic itself. We have a lot of opinions here, like this objection, that aren't borne first from scholarship and those won't help here.

The fundamental flaw in your study has nothing to do with the content of the phrase and everything to do with its length: shorter phrases get more hits. You are comparing "apples" and "rotten apples" and the results are statistically meaningless. Don't be dismissive of an objection just because you don't understand it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

@Griswaldo-yes, it can act as a modifier, but my searches ruled out "Genesis creation myth", "Genesis creation story", "Genesis creation narrative", etc. If you can think of a more commonly used noun to go with its usage as adjective than "myth" or "story" we can look at it also. But it is not at all always a modifier. For example, "in Genesis creation" which is using it as a noun there are over a well over a million hits.

@Til Eulenspiegel Narrative isn't best suited policy-wise, common-usage-wise, and I have at least one reference who claims creation myths are "stories" specifically, not just any kind of creation "narrative" but specifically a "story" type narrative.

Further note-I've searched and copied from the archives the threads that focused on this very dispute. Those threads alone now fill 320 standard format pages in MS Word. We all can keep on this silliness forever, but it's looking more and more like pure stubbornness, not policy nor "scholarship", is driving most of the debate. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

When I looked at the actual results from Google scholar using "Genesis creation" there were only two common outputs -- as a modifier (adjectival phrase) or as no phrase at all. Please see this link again . Examples of hits that are not using the phrase as a modifier are typically like this: "A Critical Edition of Evrat's Genesis: Creation to the Flood" or "Genesis, creation and early man". In these examples there is no actual phrase "Genesis creation" to speak of, just the two words happening to come in sequential order even though they are broken up by punctuation. Google does not account for punctuation properly (or as one would like it to) in these searches I'm afraid. The example you list above might be found in 0.1% of these hits. It really helps to actually look at the results themselves.Griswaldo (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I've labeled all the searches, and each count except "all" excludes the other search strings in the table. The chief complication that pops up would be plurals such as "Genesis creation myths", "Genesis creation accounts", "genesis creation narratives" (ie "creation narratives" is twice as common as "creation narrative", hence another opening to bicker endlessly over whether 1 or 2 narratives/accounts/stories should be labeled "givens" right at the outset of the article. There are plenty of examples of "genesis creation" as a referent rather than modifier in there, without intermediary punctuation, although note even the "genesis:creation" usages are almost always using "Genesis" as the modifier, "creation" as the noun. A more exacting count would take more time, but surveying those with text available for quick scan, "are quick to claim that references to a literal Genesis creation are not relegated", "In the play proper Byron dismisses the primacy of the Genesis creation, and has Lucifer", "Genesis creation and worldwide flood, "50,000-square-foot museum promoting a literal Genesis creation about 10,000 years ago", "But even though this statement is somewhat reminiscent of the Genesis creation, does it necessarily mean", "The scop tells of the Genesis creation of the physical universe", etc. No clearer alternative immediately floats to the top with this closer look (genesis creation text or texts show up but not in big numbers).

Though I'm loathe to resort to this (dictionary definitions are a very, very weak rationale in these disputes), "creation" is always a noun, and as in "the Creation" a proper noun describing "the original bringing into existence of the universe by god", or "The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence", "God's creation of the world as described in the Book of Genesis". Creation according to the dictionary definitions is always noun, Genesis in this case would be the modifier. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to begin but I'll try to keep the points broken up for clarity.

• "Creation" is always a noun, but in terms of this discussion the properties of a noun that modifies another noun that are shared with a true adjective are exactly what is at issue. I apologize for being sloppy with my terminology. For the same reason that "creation" is not an adjective, "Genesis" is also not an adjective. The notion that creation is not the modifier, but only "Genesis" is not correct when they are both followed by nouns like "account", "myth", "text", "story", etc.. In these cases they are clearly both modifiers. Once again though the issue is that when these words or phrases modify nouns like "account" or "story" they are not appropriate for a title because they rely on those nouns for meaning. Using "genesis creation" as an example of common use in a discussion about its merits as an article title requires examples in which the full string is not a modifier. Period.
• When I replicate your "Genesis creation" only search, also subtracting the plurals I almost half your number -- now down to 687. See . So that's still more than any of the specific options so what's the problem? The problem is that when I click on the results there are still a vast majority that are not of the kind you have exemplified above. Still more modifying examples exist -- "Genesis creation texts", "Genesis creation stones", "Genesis Creation Museum", "Genesis creation material", etc. What remains after these are for the most part examples where punctuation breaks the words apart, and in those cases we are no longer dealing with this term at all -- e.g. "Genesis (creation; the story ...", "What is their Genesis? Creation Research Society Quarterly", "Genesis: creation and the patriarchs", etc. Of the first 50 hits guess how many are of the kind you describe above? 7 (8 if we include its use as a "key word"). I know this is just dirty guess but 8/50 * 687 = 109. 109 is merely 10% of the number you're touting, and well below the other options which don't suffer the types of problems described here since they are actually full noun phrases in virtually every instant they are found.
• This brings me to the actual instances, 8 of the first 50, that use the phrase "Genesis creation" on its own. These instances are almost exclusively of one kind -- when "Genesis creation" is being taken as an actual event that occurred in history -- e.g. "literal Genesis creation", "Byron discusses the primacy of the Genesis creation", "A literal Genesis creation", "reminiscent of the Genesis creation", etc. In these instances "Genesis creation" refers to the act of creation by God, and not the story about that act or otherwise the retelling of that act. The various authors here do not all necessarily believe in the actuality of this act, but when they don't they are describing real people, or characters in another story, who do believe in this literal act. In this sense the term is much worse than "Creation according to Genesis" in how much it implies that an actual act of creation by God has actually happened.

Prof. M I have to say that I'm getting slightly puzzled by your insistence on this term being preferable based on common use. It clearly isn't. Once we wade through the junk that turns up from the Google searches it is rarely used, and when it is it bares this literalist/historical connotation virtually always. It is clearly less common and way less precise if we are trying to label a narrative that is laid out in a few biblical passages.Griswaldo (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The idea of "Genesis creation" is silly. It'll be challenged and overturned almost immediately, because it implies that there was a creation, which is disputed by one side of this debate. If it weren't for WP:AGF, I might suspect that this is the professor's actual intent. Torpedo the consensus that's been built for something truly NPOV ("Genesis creation narrative") so that it'll wind up as "Genesis creation myth" again. I can't imagine what useful reason there would be for omitting the completely neutral and descriptive term "narrative". Those who think it's true agree that it's a narrative. Those who think it's not agree it's a narrative. Why are we still quibbling about this? Let's get on with the name change and get back to squabbling about the actual content. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to WP:AGF here myself, but I think its going to be hard if the Prof. doesn't recognize that Gensis creation is simply not remotely as common as his table implies. Also what Lisa says about the implication of the phrase is not just an implication of course, but a reality when it comes to actual usage of the phrase. See my third point above where I show exactly this use in actual examples. I really hope that particular issue is settled for good. Prof M, can you please take a look at my post and respond regarding this. I'm more than willing to believe that you didn't go through all the steps that I did to sort this out, but now that they are in front of you what's the verdict? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

@griswaldo - no, your reasoning is good. Google scholar isn't a good rubric at this level because a) a large proportion in this hit count included citations which will "hit" only on strings in titles b) the counts aren't large to begin with and c) a sizable number of hits don't have anything to do with this subject at all. But even google books, which is a little better measure due to a/b/c, and google web which which can be a real garbage can of unrelated stuff, are certainly over-counting the usage. You've produced a good argument. I'm almost done surveying the references used. And I've also done some google hit reruns to see how things shake out with the plurals, multiple usage, etc. I'll update soon.

@Lisa - "torpedo the consensus"? You be sure and let us know when you've changed the WP:AGF policy to apply only to those who agree with you in the wiki polls, okay? Until then, I'm going to respect the policies we do have. I'm not completely finished, but as it stands now "genesis creation narrative" and "genesis creation myth" are very distant finishers. If this dispute could be successfully settled with NPOV, "creation according to genesis" would be the end of it. But NPOV is NOT the dominant factor in article naming...common usage prevails except in special circumstances. The reason given for the most recent successful article rename was that "genesis creation myth" was more commonly used than "creation according to genesis". I'm focused on policy issues as I listed several paragraphs above, and otherwise - meh...I don't care about this rename (although I'm annoyed oftentimes to see nicely, aptly phrased pipe changed due to the "oversensitivity" of editors of all stripes with an itch to push and/or vanquish a very narrow POV). So I'm not backing this one. It doesn't measure up to the article naming policies, and I'm not wasting any of my time examining article renames some other way. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Prof. M. Don't you think the "Genesis creation" and "Biblical creation" options are a bit dead in the water because of the literalist implications, I mean however we move forward? I do think that the common use argument regarding "creation narrative" is a fair point. In use it stacks up pretty much 1:1 with "creation myth". I will say this though, there is much closer semantic relationship between "narrative" and "story" than between either and "myth" (in fact I doubt there is a thesaurus out there that doesn't list "narrative" and "story" as synonyms). So far, from several different approaches using Google scholar and books, "creation story" seems to be the clear common use winner. As I've stated several times now that actual phrase is my preference, but I can see an argument for putting "narrative" over the top of "myth" based on this as well. The two appear about as many times, but "narrative" is also a synonym of "story" and story appears well more times than other alternatives. The only problem I have with using "narrative" is that it's just more obscure than "story". The flip side is that narrative is probably an increasingly popular phrase in scholarship on these passages, though I might be wrong about that. It is certainly more and more common in the humanities generally speaking.Griswaldo (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this. "Genesis creation" and "biblical creation" or just plain "the creation" with the Bible/Genesis/OT implied by the context are the most common used. It's by far the most common usage here at wikipedia, it turns out. Most inline wikilinks to this article (over half) are piped as just plain "creation", "biblical creation", or "the creation", compared with less than 1 in 5 that are left unpiped as "genesis creation myth". But these are usually because the creation event (as opposed to the story we find it in) is what is being written about. But it's unsuited here, I'm convinced now, because this article is about the story first, the nature of the event in it second.

And no two ways about it, narrative is by far the more obscure usage. I've looked at it backwards and forwards. Narrative, when it is the term used, is used more often when the focus is on the text thru the scope of literary analysis comparing the form, style, voice etc to either the second narrative in Genesis or some other text than in other contexts. The most common usage even in books and journals is "story". Even when examined as myth, "story" is used along with more often than not. After scanning a stack of texts, I think the primary case when "story" fades to the background is when the tone is the "Genesis 1/Genesis 2" style, addressed exactly by chapter and verse, without much need for "account" or "narrative" etc. It's also interesting that "myth" is only infrequently the term used in texts that one might view as "disparaging" of Genesis creation. On the blogs or youtube, you will see it- and here on wikipedia clearly it has been used this way too often. What's also interesting is the emphasis this "myth" is given in the creationist related articles which is the area where I see it far less often used in real published books than I do in other areas looking at it, such as in literature, religion, anthropology, ancient history, art. The creationist texts (and creationism probably most explains these 'battle lines' here over words) are dealing with the religious aspects, not the mythic aspects. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Village pump discussion about WP:RNPOV

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 75#Clarifying_WP:RNPOV

I've requested that this policy be modified to make it clear that when it comes to article titles, words which carry a common connotation of POV should not be used. Currently, no distinction is made between titles and the articles themselves, and some editors have seized on this as a reason to insist on including the word "myth" in the title of this article. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

An excellent idea!Mk5384 (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems as though WP:RNPOV has been deleted by consensus over at WP:NPOV. So disregard this. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 11:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has long discouraged all but the academic/quoted sense of "cult" and words which similarly label. I had suggested that the term "myth" by explicitly included in the section at WP:WTW, formerly WP:WTA. Perhaps editors here would like to comment there, regarding "myth" being designated a "word that labels". --AuthorityTam (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I second your sentiment Tam. NickCT (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there is potential for abuse concerning a term like "myth." I think that "myth" should not be used unless its sense is obvious or if an explanation accompanies its use. Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The comparison between "cult" and "myth" does a serious disservice to the former term where the issue involves communities of living people being associated with things like brainwashing, mass suicide, sexual abuse, etc. The cult label may have serious real world consequences. Calling someone's cherished beliefs false may not be very nice but it pales in comparison. Please reconsider going down this road. In the proper context and with the proper wikilinking the term "myth" does not need the type of attribution suggested for "cult" either. I agree that without such context there is a strong case to avoid it, which makes sense regarding the title, but with context avoiding it is just pandering to a minority. Once you start down this road another problem will be differentiating clearly between these things. Again I think this is a bad idea.Griswaldo (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Griswaldo — there already exists WP:LABEL. Are you saying not to add "myth" to the words cautioned against there? Bus stop (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that this term doesn't compare to some of the other words we try to avoid in there, and I see such a comparison being made. The guidelines is great, but I don't think this term needs to go in there. A sensible guideline would be to caution against or simply forbid the use of "myth" in its colloquial sense of meaning "not true". If "myth" were added to WP:LABEL I'd make sure it wasn't compared to "cult" but was given its own set of less drastic cautions like: "Avoid using myth as a label if the context is not clear."Griswaldo (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Myth and cult are different words, but they share to some degree the potential for abuse and misunderstanding. I think any word can be used. But it might be good for future reference to have "myth" listed along with words that have the potential to cause misunderstanding. Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors may wish to comment at WP:VPM#Add "myth" to WP:LABEL. --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

"The account" has implications of truth which is a very significant pov for the lead. I replaced it with "a story" which still seems better (less definitive) to me but this was reverted. Other views would be appreciated. Abtract (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Story" gives implications of untruth, so that could be seen as POV too. "Account" is better I think for this reason: Everybody believes the world had a beginning at some time, fact. This is Genesis' account then of that beginning. Since the Bible is the best-selling book of all time, Genesis deserves to be able to stand as giving it's own account. We're not questioning it's truth or untruth in the first sentence. Just laying out the plain facts as they stand. SAE (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

How does "account" imply truth? Moby Dick is an account of Captain Ahab's vendetta against a whale. Would it help if it said "An account", rather than "The account"? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Account implies truth just as much as story implies untruth -- both can be used in ways that more explicitly encompass one of those less neutral meanings. However, for the most part, at least in modern usage, neither term implies anything about truth in and of itself, and both rely on context for meaning anyway. When an "account" or a "story" is attributed to another person, group of persons, or a text any reader understands that its just according to that entity and not some objective reality outside of it. The real problem here is that you all are going to bicker over these terms because the other group likes the other one better. That mere fact lends more psychological wieght to the notion that it must mean what you don't want it to mean. My advice to both sides of this. Give it up. It's just counterproductive.Griswaldo (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think "account," "story," and "narrative" are pretty noncommittal on the question of truth or falseness as concerns the subject of this article. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Usability

As of this timestamp, this page is nearly 400 KB long. It contains multiple related discussions regarding naming and multiple actual proposals for alternative titles, including two three concurrent requested moves. In short, it is virtually impossible for anyone who has not been involved with this article for a long time to follow all that is taking place.

I have two requests, which I believe will improve the situation. First, let's close the two open RMs (nearly 250 KB combined and open for more than 7 days) and archive them; if there is consensus in the RMs to rename to one of the two proposals—Creation according to Genesis or Biblical Creation—then it should be implemented. Second, in the future, please let's consider only one move request at any given time or propose and consider all options at the same time. The current approach of considering multiple options that were proposed at different stages of different discussions is much too chaotic.

Implementing even one of these would be an improvement, in my opinion. Thoughts? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Are there any objections to closing "Creation according to Genesis" and "Biblical creation"? If we continue with other requests can we just table these indefinitely? My personal suggestion would be to continue with "Genesis creation narrative", and only after closing the request as BlackFalcon suggests move onto another. My personal preference would be "Genesis creation story", and I'm making that suggestion in part because of a discussion with BlackFalcon regarding Google results hidden somewhere in the above mess.Griswaldo (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I recommend going with "narrative" rather than "story", simply because "story" is more loaded. Yes, it's been claimed to be loaded in both directions (one editor suggested that it implies historicity and another suggested that it implies falsity -- go figure), but still, "narrative" remains the one term that no one has perceived bias in. Google results don't trump that. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I second GresW's motion. NickCT (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Griswaldo, can you please separate out your comment about "story"? By grouping it together with your other proposal, it makes it difficult for anyone to post agreement with one and not the other. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think "Creation according to Genesis," the long time name of this article, was fine, and is still arguably the best title for this article. We should not be "characterizing" the subject matter in any way. "Myth" most egregiously puts a "spin" on it and tells the reader what to think. But the discussions concerning "story," "account," and "narrative," all seem to concern themselves with what implications these terms carry. The beauty of "Creation according to Genesis" is that it bypasses the issue of characterization of the subject matter in any way. It is a simple explication of what is to follow. Bus stop (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well other people do not agree with you regarding the old title, and I'm one of them. Some have suggested that "Creation according to Genesis" connotes fact ... the fact of a creation. Personally I don't worry about that, and my own (possibly solitary) view is that "Creation according to Genesis" suggests an authoritative interpretation of the text. In reality we're always dealing with the genesis creation narrative according to interpretation. Outside of a word for word copy of the Hebrew text there is no "Creation according to Genesis". Those who tend to claim that there is ... or otherwise make statements that include phrases like "according to the Bible", or "according to Deuteronomy", etc. make those statements with the intention of conveying that their reading is authoritative. It isn't according to them, but according to the text itself. I wrote more about this above, including an explanation of how I believe this also implies that the text is given agency, but that part isn't necessary here. I actually believe that "according to Genesis" may be the worst alternative here.Griswaldo (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to "Genesis creation narrative." There seems to be a lot of support for that, and I don't think there have been any objections to "Genesis creation narrative" voiced.

Why does this article exist? Shouldn't we be asking ourselves that question? If a serious initiative arose to delete the article, how would you defend its existence? The answer to that should guide your choice of title, I think. Shouldn't it exist because it is a cultural artifact in some circles regarding how the world came into existence? Or would you defend its existence as an article on different grounds? If it is an explication, in certain cultural circles, as to the beginnings of the world, then why shouldn't our title reflect that? To me, "Creation according to Genesis" includes an acknowledgement of something that I think all interpretations arrive at, namely that the narration alludes to the initiation of the world.

You imply that there are different interpretations of Genesis chapters one and two. What are they? Are they enormously different from one another? I think they are all in the same ball park. They all put words to events by which the basic substance of the universe, including mankind, acquired existence. Are there interpretations that disagree with that characterization? Bus stop (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes some of them are enormously different from another. One obvious example is creation "ex nihilo" vs. creation out of chaos. Which is it? According to most biblical scholars it is the latter, and according to most Christian theologians it is the former. I recall a related argument from Alastair regarding these chapters being anti-mythological. From what I gathered the claim is that the authors of Genesis were critiquing Babylonian creation mythology not copying it. These are, again, huge differences. Then there are related differences in the interpretive frames used by scholars and laymen now and historically -- e.g. as a myth, as a literal account, as allegory, etc. I don't think this point needs belaboring.Griswaldo (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see your point as concerns there being a significant difference between various interpretations. It is not as though we are characterizing science. What is the difference, from the point of view of what article title we choose, whether "creation" takes place against a backdrop of nothingness or against a backdrop of "chaos?" We are just choosing a title that relates to the general idea of "creation," in a non-scientific way. I think the "interpretations" that you allude to fade into insignificance, as the subject at hand is merely a cultural reference. If this were science, it would matter greatly what particles, for instance, existed at the moment of the "beginning." But we need not be overly concerned with such concrete matters here, I don't think. Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand how you're addressing my problem with the old title. The point is simply that there is no one uniform "creation" according to Genesis. Perhaps "Creation according to interpretations of Genesis". Please address this point or else I'm not sure we're really discussing anything at all here just talking past each other. Also, please realize that the sociological point I added above explains why it makes me particularly uneasy. If anything this article does and should address the fact that there is no one authoritative interpretation of this or any other Biblical texts. We should therefore stay away from language that implies that what we present is "creation according to Genesis". If you are saying that each community that takes a different approach to the creation narrative each also individually believe that their interpretation is of "creation according to Genesis" then if anything that underscores the absurdity of the title and not the utility of it.Griswaldo (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You suggest "Creation according to interpretations of Genesis." That is also an acceptable title. But it suffers from being unnecessarily long. And just like "Genesis creation myth," it contains unnecessary material. I think that it is not necessary to point out at the level of the title that there are "interpretations" (in the plural) of Genesis. Some things can wait until the body of the article. The purpose of a title is to identify an article's subject by minimal references. Some aspects of an article's import require the actual reading of the article. That is what the present title suffers from: too much information. The body of the article is where the many "interpretations" can and should be explored.

Furthermore, and forgive me if I am being obtuse, how does the title "Creation according to Genesis" limit the number of interpretations to only one? To my way of thinking, all interpretations (plural) fall under that heading. I don't think it (that title) conveys any strong implication that there is only one interpretation. I think it is perfectly reasonable to explore any number of interpretations within the body of an article with the simple title "Creation according to Genesis."

We don't need to know, at the level of the title, other than the bare essentials: Genesis and creation. Maybe that is a title worth considering: "Genesis and creation." Bus stop (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This really isn't worth arguing. Maybe you're being obtuse, but I don't mean that as an insult because apparently I think I'm one of the only people not being obtuse about this, so really where does that leave me? Like I said above I might be the only person here who has this particular objection. If you read my exchange above you'll get yet more information regarding my perspective but I'm not sure that will clarify anything. In the end maybe I'm obtuse, I'm not sure, but either way its not worth arguing about something that wont be resolved. The other objection I mention is held by more than one person other than myself however. The point is that the old title is not liked by many ... the whole "myth" crowd as well as some of us who don't like the myth title. I think, as I said above, that it's dead in the water.Griswaldo (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the title "Creation according to Genesis" in no way limits the number of interpretations of the text to only one. On the other hand, "narrative," "myth," and "story" are singular nouns and imply that Genesis only contains one account of creation. Many interpreters maintain there are two distinct accounts while others dispute this. "Creation according to Genesis" neutrally leaves open the question of how many accounts there are.--agr (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The "narrative" may include several source narratives and still be a narrative. There's no need to put plural in there. Besides, plural can only be plural, while singular could also be plural.

Think of the phrase of a tragedy; "their death" instead of "their deaths" is perfectly intelligible.EGMichaels (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I just wrote I will not argue this anymore, but just as a point of fact I wasn't arguing that the title limits the amount of interpretations to one in any practical sense when writing an encyclopedia article. The argument is that implies that there is an authoritative interpretation directly attributable to the text itself.. Put perhaps more clearly it implies that interpretation isn't necessary. If we have "creation according to Genesis" we don't need to interpret anything. Again, my reasons for not liking this are less to do with semantics and more to do with social practices. I am not going to rehash all of this anymore. You can read the exchange directly above and here but I will not continue this again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genesis_creation_myth#Proposals . In fact I'm sorry I brought it up a second time at all.Griswaldo (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is only a problem when you are dealing with redactive criticism. If you merely focus on the final text, regardless of what Ur texts went into it, it's simpler to just say "narrative" to mean the final text. Most folks approach the book from that perspective, and THEN dig into the substrata. So, we can start with a title that is recognizable to most folks and then tell them something they didn't already know.EGMichaels (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No I actually agree with using "narrative" or "story". That is a clear identification of, as you say, a final text. The problem I have (sorry for breaking my promise) is with the identification of something else, in the text, and authoritatively "according to" the text. But again I recognize that others do not agree with me, or else that I'm not getting through so no need to continue that. Just wanted to clarify that I'm all for "narrative" or "story".Griswaldo (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It certainly does seem like we're all circling around something we can live with. I'm amazed at how much interest a little book report (on Genesis) has attracted. ;-)EGMichaels (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's right. I look at the history of my own comments here and readily recognize several small shifts of opinion based on arguments and evidence provided by a wide array of editors. I also think some real progress has been made regarding common use, which I'm beginning to understand is should really sit at the foundation of this discussion but I'm not sure everyone cares or agrees unfortunately. We'll see, but I think that there is at least one option that handles all challanges -- neutrality, common use, scholarly use, etc. I wont repeat it but it includes a word that starts with S and ends with Y. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see the advantage in "Genesis creation soapy."EGMichaels (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry for the confusion. What I meant was Genesis creation sticky.Griswaldo (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

We're getting down to the real 'pickies', like singular/plural, etc. story v stories, narrative v narratives. For absolutely no other reason than practicality, I ask for a re-hash of "Creation according to Genesis." Here are some "according to's" that already exist on Wikipedia. Please note that none of them inherently increase their authoritativeness, authenticity, or believability because of the "according to" prepositional phrase. It simply sources the material. The perceived validity or credence is entirely dependent on whatever opinion the reader has about Genesis. No one has yet presented a convincing case for avoiding "according to" because it implies truth in Genesis's report.

As I write this, our area is under a tornado warning! It's nearly 1 a.m. and, of course, pitch dark. The TV announcer just said, "According to the U.S. Weather Bureau, funnel cloud activity is being seen on its Doppler radar at ...." Then, another station just reported, "According to a driver on the Interstate, he describes what he says is 'clearly a funnel cloud' at the intersection of hwy x and the Interstate." Both said "according to" in sourcing their report. Which source has greater credibility to me as a listener? Not being a meteorologist, I'm putting my trust in the Doppler radar source. For those who have no confidence in Genesis, "according to Genesis" will kill it right there. And, the converse also will be true for some.

One more appeal for "Creation according to Genesis." Thanks for your forbearance. Consider these existing titles: According to Jim (an American sitcom television series,) Gospel According to John According To Our Records According to Hoyle According to Marxism-Leninism Gospel According to Matthew Gospel according to the Hebrews preserved only in the writings of the Church Fathers Gospel according to Luke Gospel According to Thomas (non-canonical) According to the United States National Cancer Institute List of America's Favorite Architecture according to the AIA─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You are picking battles with the wrong argument. I don't think a single other editor here as expressed any support or backing for my particular objection. Clearly my solitary view is rather meaningless. More than one other editor objects to the old title for a wholly different reason. I would suggest engaging that argument if you do like this title.

I will point out, however, that you've given examples of exactly what I've been so stubbornly claiming (to no avail). In all of these examples the implication is precisely that the authoritative view, according to the source, is being presented. Clearly, outside of the source, there is no inherent or natural authority or objectivity for that matter. "According to a driver on the interstate", means precisely according to him/her, and another driver may come up with another story altogether. However within these sources we assume authenticity or else the "according to" is itself false. So when you say "according to our records" the claim is that definitively our records say such and such. Here we already see the power of authority because if these records are considered the means by which some claim can be adjudicated, then the statement "according to our records" is a heck of a lot more than just descriptive. Interpretive haggling within communities that recognize the authority of a given text (or between people within these communities and people outside of them) comes up exactly for these reasons. I tried to use the U.S. Constitution as an example when this conversation first started way above. People make claims "according to the Constitution ..." to grant them the Constitution's authority. In reality there is no according to the Constitution. If there was we wouldn't need a Supreme Court to constantly reinterpret what that very statement should mean. I would argue that the gospel examples you bring up are not good ones for this conversation because while I could also reduce them to the same argument these phrases also happen to be accepted names in common use. The "gospel according to Luke" is the name for a given text. This name could be the "The anti-gospel of great renown in Rhodesia according to all living creatures except for the elephant" and we'd be in the same boat. The Book of Matthew is arguable better than the Gospel according to Matthew, but the latter is still an acceptable, commonly used name.

So no it doesn't become more believable, but that's not the point. The point is exactly that we are not presenting a singular authoritative version of creation "according to Genesis" here. Anyway I will no longer respond unless miraculously others agree with me because its pointless. I would never force this issue if it came down to that because I know I stand alone. Better have beef with an argument that has more traction. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The argument is unsupportable since -

• According to the Constitution-redlink
• Gospel according to Luke-redirect → Gospel of Luke
• The Book of Matthew and Gospel according to Matthew redirects → Gospel of Matthew
• According to Jim actual name of television series
• Gospel According to John redirect → Gospel of John
• According To Our Records redirect → ATO Records
• According to Hoyle redirect → Edmond Hoyle
• According to Marxist-Leninism redlink
• Gospel According to Matthew redirect → Gospel of Matthew
• Gospel according to the Hebrews redirect → Gospel of the Hebrews
• Gospel according to Luke redirect → Gospel of Luke
• Gospel According to Thomas redirect → Gospel of Thomas
• According to the United States National Cancer Institute redlink
• List of America's Favorite Architecture according to the AIA redirect → America's Favorite Architecture

Food for thought, given that even creation myth is currently being lobbied for a name change, I'd like to draw attention to the plethora of articles with "Gospel" in their title. The term "gospel" is widely used to mean absolutely true, as in "children accept as gospel what their parents tell them" or "don't take everything you read in the papers as gospel". Obviously it's not NPOV because a lot of people don't accept the Gospel of Luke as gospel. Those titles are offensive to some, widely misunderstood by others, and maybe they should be retitled with new euphemisms too? Or wouldn't that be totally ... ridiculous. I think it would be, but I wonder what you think, Afaprof1. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice thoughts, but you're not starting with equal terms and you are aware of that. SAE (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

They are both "equal"; they are both used to define certain types of texts and they both have alternative definitions in wide use in the broader culture. They both can serve as object lessons of what the NPOV policy is not at all designed for. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to your comparison of the title that some want to give to this article and the title giving to a literary masterpiece that has been around for almost 2000 years. There is no equal ground here to begin the comparison. "The Gospel of Matthew" is it's name, just like "Coke" is a name, and this is accepted by scholarship worldwide. "Myth" on the other hand is a category we're are trying to fit the Genesis creation narrative into. This is neither a title, nor is it universally excepted. You are implying that if "myth" doesn't belong, than neither does "Gospel", but that is not an equal comparison. SAE (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

My argument was more nuanced but you've apparently missed it. My argument is that what the articles are called have very little to do with whether or not there is universal acceptance the label is accurate. It's not about whether there is universal acceptance to what the label implies to some or means literally; what matters most is whether it is the most common label in use in the mainstream and references used. I agree that "Genesis creation myth" is not the most common ("Genesis creation narrative" is even less common though.) The article creation myth, however, is given the most common name as it's used in the real world. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, my mistake. I thought you were comparing the title "Gospel of Matthew" to "Creation Myth," and saying that if some are offended by "myth" (and therefore change the title because of that offense), then there is then precedence to change the title of "Gospel" because some can also be offended by that. And that you were trying to show the ridiculousness of changing this current title, by comparing it to the ridiculousness of changing the title of something like "Gospel of Matthew." In that way, there is no equal comparison between people's offense at "myth," and others offense at "Gospel." But if that's not what you meant, then I apologize for missing your point. Cheers, SAE (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Page move discussion

Is there a reason why this discussion isn't being promoted on appropriate WikiProject talk pages? Surely we want the widest possible participation? --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

We've got a hundred people on it now. This shouldn't be as complicated as it is. "Myth" is obviously not consensus; "Truth" is clearly not consensus; "[something neutral]" is clearly consensus for everyone but the true-[dis]believers.

Put on a blindfold and throw a dart at a board filled with neutral substitutes.

Heck, a lot of the mythsters are claiming they are using the term in a "neutral" way. So, assume good faith (i.e. assume they are telling the truth about neutrality), pick a synonym for that "neutral" claim, and call it a day.EGMichaels (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it strange to use both genesis and creation in the article title, they being nearly synonymous terms. The biblical account of 'the beginning' (beginnings are required by 2nd law of thermodynamics, by the way), was and is an historical accounting--regardless of its accuracy. History is pretty much spun to POV of the winners--oh how much historical truth has been lost by the losers. Myth, account or whatever hardly deserves so much indecision. I'm neutral on that choice, but I do believe that the physical has beginnings that are non-physical.Mouselb (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

DO you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says? · CUSH · 21:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As much as it's going to upset Cush, I'm going to have to agree with him here. Mouselb, this is an encyclopedia; not a tract. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that would be good on a tract.EGMichaels (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mouse in his assertion that "genesis" and "creation" are nearly synonymous terms and so they shouldn't both be used. I still lobby for the "Judeo–Christian creation myth" title I mentioned above. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 15:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And I'll continue to oppose that, because there's no such thing as "Judeo-Christian". That's a false conflation of two very separate and in most ways mutually exclusive religions. Furthermore, there is a difference between Genesis and genesis. The former is a book of the Bible. The latter is a common noun which has a similar meaning to creation. Don't confuse the two. Furthermore, the term "myth" does not belong in the title. It can be in the body of the article, where it can be explained that the intent is not to the common understanding of the word, but in a title, you don't get the opportunity to explain things. You think the narrative is a myth, and others think the narrative is the truth. But calling it "Creation truth" and calling it "Creation myth" -- in the title -- in inappropriate and agenda pushing. What everyone agrees on is that it's some kind of narrative or other. So let's go with "Genesis creation narrative". - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not a false conflation at all. Christianity is theologically almost indistinguishable from Judaism, and especially the creation myth is the selfsame. And btw there are no serious people who don't think this is a myth. Only the lunatic fringe who reject methodological naturalism, empiricism, and all epistemology still adhere to this backward iron age belief that is just scientifically wrong in every single aspect. This stuff has even less credibility than the King Arthur myth. Oh, and there is no such thing as subjective truth. · CUSH · 19:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Judeo-Christian" does not imply a conflation of "theology" in the first place. I have a hard time understanding what on earth Cush is talking about. This is a term that refers quite simply to things shared between the two traditions. The narrative in question is such a shared thing quite obviously. This title isn't the best, but it's not inaccurate and it doesn't imply all kinds of theological nonsense. People here have a real tendency to conflate their own interpretations of what terms mean with the intended meaning of those terms, or their most common meaning in practice.Griswaldo (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

But the conflation of theology is what Lisa was referring to and afraid of. We know Lisa, you know. · CUSH · 19:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed linkspam.Griswaldo (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Cush — this is an article Talk page. You are using the Talk page to link to a satirical treatment of creation science. While I find the linked-to video funny, it also should be noted that none of us here have been arguing from a Creation science viewpoint. I don't recall that anyone opposes the present title because of religious sensibility, and it is a bit of a Straw man argument to construe the disagreement as one between science and religion. It is not that at all. The present title is problematic because titles should contain only essential material. A title is supposed to identify an article, and nothing more. It constitutes extraneous material to communicate to the reader that the subject matter contained herein is untrue. Sourced information of this nature belongs in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Big changes

I think the text reorganization that came with these recent changes makes the article less readable - . Moving a section from near the end to right after the introduction strikes me as a the type of big move that should be discussed first. I personally don't understand the placement of a section on interpretation prior to the presentation of the text itself.Griswaldo (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There, I have moved it below into a section on interpretation. Thanks for mentioning this, because I like the structure better now. We have 4 main sections: 1. Narratives, 2. Structure, 3. Exegetical points, and 4. Interpretation. That is a nice structure to work with for this article. There were a lot of pieces duplicated and just out of place in this article (still a little bit of that -- I see now the "3.10 Typology", belongs properly under "4. Interpretation.", and so forth) SAE (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic language

I was reviewing the last several dozen changes and noticed a lot of unencyclopedic language added.

From this:

The modern division of Genesis into chapters dates from c. AD 1200, and the division into verses somewhat later; the distinction between Genesis 1 and 2 is therefore a relatively recent development.

To this:

The modern division of the Bible into chapters and verse dates from around AD 1200, and so we must remember that the distinction we make today between chapter 1 and chapter 2 of Genesis was not part of the original text.

This needs to be changed back or rewritten. We do not use "we" or leading language. See WP:WTA

The whole section on Wenham starting at line 41 has the "We" issue as well.

An important issue that needs to be reconciled by the reader is how they are going to view and understand these early chapters in Genesis.

Does it? Sounds like OR.

So modern scholarship struggles in how to understand Genesis in a way that is both honest with what we know today scientifically, but also in a way that interacts with the many newly discovered ancient Near Eastern religious texts that parallel Genesis in many ways. How we answer this again has further implications for how we will understand the rest of the Bible, including the Apostle Paul's own understanding of Genesis who was not aware of the very factors that shape our own views.

Again with the "we." I thought this page was being watched by dozens, so how does it keep getting worse? Auntie E. (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you for bringing WP:WTA to my attention. This is a simple fix that could be done in two ways: (1) Just change the "we" to something that is better and leave your reason in the edit summary, or (2) Please in the future if you notice something with my edits that can be fixed by a simple pointing out of a manual of style article, it would be nice if you could just leave me a personal note on my talk page, instead of right away going here to the public talk page and telling everyone that my edits make things worse. Cheers, SAE (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's NOT a simple fix. It needs more than just a switch out of "we" -- that's not the only section of WP:WTA that needs review here. I don't appreciate the idea that I was wronging you somehow in bringing my concerns here. This is where we discuss the article. If you can't handle proper criticism, maybe you shouldn't be editing here. I was absolutely right in bringing my concerns here. Auntie E. (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

ok, I was just asking for you to kindly mention to me on my talk page of the policies I have violated. never mind then if you don't want to. SAE (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I don't want to. It's just not necessary if my concern is regarding article content. I and most everyone else here would like to have all content concerns discussed in one place. That's what this page is for. If my concern was behavioral or personal, then I would bring it to you personally. Otherwise, it's unnecessary and confusing. Auntie E. (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It clearly needs to be restored to the original. And this talk page is exactly where the concerns about edits to the article belong. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think the BOLD changes didn't work. Auntie E. (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

fixed. anything else? SAE (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Prof, I agree with your last edit to the article, asking for a source. However, all the content was in place before I started editing the last two days. I added no content in my edits, I only changed sentence structure, fixed grammar, and moved paragraphs around that were duplicated. I did add a couple citation needed tags as well, and more could be added, but I have no way of sourcing that sentence since I do not know where it came from. SAE (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You've made many edits over the last few days, and I'm sure that you weren't pointing a finger of blame at anyone in particular when you made your changes or added certain fact tags. Neither have I. We need a source from someplace, but I wasn't putting the responsibility on you or anyone else for finding it. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

simpler is better

I made this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis_creation_myth&action=historysubmit&diff=358170270&oldid=358141245 in order to simplify the text by removing unecessary translations which addded nothing to readers' understanding (imho). This edit was reverted with the explanation that "there was no problem when it was latin" . Other views would be appreciated. Abtract (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I find the translations that you removed to be helpful and appropriate to the level of this article.--agr (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain why? Abtract (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

For one thing, part of what a good encyclopedia article does is to prepare its users to read the literature of the field. The terms you deleted are stuff one is likely to encounter in writing about the Bible.--agr (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

mmm I'm not convinced and, in particular, I find (tzelem elohim) to be pointless. Abtract (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact is, that "Imago Dei" remained for some time, but as soon as it became "tzelem elohim", it was quickly removed. As this is Old Testament, I still believe that the Hebrew translation is what should be used, just as we would use Classic Greek for the New Testament, or Arabic for the Quran. The inclusion of "tzelem elohim" only adds clarity, and its removal, whilst admittedly not harmful, does nothing to improve.Mk5384 (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the source for this: "...and, in Christian theology, the activity of the Holy Spirit." I don't see a reference provided for that assertion. That is the rest of the sentence in which is found "tzelem elohim". Bus stop (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone close the second move discussion above?

Why is the "Biblical creation" discussion still open? Does anyone object to it being closed?Griswaldo (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No objections here. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

FAQ at the top

I guess this can just be deleted now? Or maybe someone wants to edit it to fit the current title? As it stands, some of the faq's say the opposite of what the consensus and now new title says. SAE (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

i propose a motion to Delete? Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Biblical creationism

While moving this page, I noticed that Biblical creationism redirects here. Is this correct or is this a topic that deserves its own article? Ucucha 02:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it should redirect to Creationism rather than here Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

hmm.. it seems to me to be different. As soon as you say the word "creationism" you open a whole new can of worms. A creationist will certainly use the Genesis creation narrative as their basis, but there's is only one interpretation of it. It also reaches far beyond this article's confines. SAE (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "Creationism" is somewhat different. The section there called Types of Biblical creationism would seem to be the best target for a redirect from Biblical creationism. I've just edited the redirect there; it's now to the specific section. --AuthorityTam (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What now?

So after the anti-myth faction is having their way, the work is not finished of course. Per WP:UCN all other articles that carry "creation myth" in their titles must be renamed to create consistency and encyclopedic honesty.

• Chinese creation myth
• Sumerian creation myth
• Ancient Egyptian creation myths
• Pelasgian creation myth
• Tongan creation myth
• Mesoamerican creation myths
• every other you can find

These are all just narratives now and must no longer signal the supernatural in their titles.

And of course the Judeo-Christian section on the Creation Myth must be removed, now that special treatment has been allowed for the Pentateuch adherents. · CUSH · 06:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Cush — what is "Judeo-Christian"? Judaism and Christianity are two different religions. The article can treat Judaism's relationship to Genesis, and the article can treat Christianity's relationship to Genesis. Why would any material have to be removed from the article? Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to change them, go ahead and change them. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." --Ralph Waldo Emerson. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Cush you and I both know that you've listed every one anyone can find already. Please strike the deceptive "every other you can find". The term is not used consistently in titles here nor, as Prof. Marginalia is trying to point out, is it used consistently in the real world.Griswaldo (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone research topics anymore or is this just another he bellyaches loudest wins website? Because I thought it was aspiring to be an encyclopedia. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Your point being? Creation myth was erased from the title to appease religious editors and readers, and not because research into the issue would have led to the conclusion that the opening chapters of Genesis do in fact not tell a creation myth (namely the Jewish and subsequently Christian one). · CUSH · 06:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My point is many are yelling, but few are researching. I did not support this name change, but there never has been "consistency" on the topic in this or any encyclopedia because "consistency" isn't real life, nor is it part of the policy here. It was "erased" from the title because the name change request achieved a demonstrable consensus. I don't think any of the various names so far given this article actually came from researching what it was called in real life. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "what it was called in real life" ?? · CUSH · 10:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that going for a rename of the other articles is a good idea, and I strongly doubt that it will happen. After you will have tried and failed to do so, WIkipedia will de facto be an encyclopedia where the Genesis creation myth is the only creation myth that should not be called a creation myth. DVdm (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the subject of this article may be referred to in different ways by different people in different places. Choosing an article name cannot possibly be based solely on reflecting actual usage because actual usage varies. In actual use, people are not referring to the title for an article, yet that is our sole aim. We are neither making reference to this subject in common speech nor are we didactically referring to this subject in an academic setting. This isn't a "teaching moment," as some have construed it. This is simply the titling of an article. That entails identifying the subject of the article and nothing more. Furthermore the supposed academic usage is probably not even universal in academic settings, as some editors seemed to point out. And even beyond that, the academic setting probably represents only a minority setting. It is necessary to read the article. The title has the purpose of only facilitating the finding of the article. The title thus has to help all people find the article. Bus stop (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The subject of the article is the creation myth that is contained/conveyed in the opening chapters of Genesis. For the sake of the religious editors here this title has been abandoned to set the belief systems that are built on said creation myth apart from all others. And you very well know that. The religionists have won, as simple as that. · CUSH · 10:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Cush — there are no "religious editors" here. That is the straw man argument, again. Bus stop (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There are clearly religious editors here. Bus stop it does not help anyone's credibility to pretend this. In fact it quite distinctly hurts our credibility to do so.Griswaldo (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how you are defining "religious editor." To me a religious editor, in this context, would be an editor that wanted to see some kind of promotion of religion in the title. Is any editor suggesting titles suggestive of a religious point of view? I don't think so. Bus stop (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Judaism and Christianity were promoted by changing the title. The removal of "creation myth" establishes an artificial distinction from other creation myths. This is a clear violation of WP:UCN and is based entirely on the religious convictions of editors. · CUSH · 13:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Cush — you say the following: "Judaism and Christianity were promoted by changing the title." How, may I ask, are both Judaism and Christianity promoted? And what is being promoted? Is the article title change promoting the notion that the messiah arrived 2,000 years ago, or is the article title change promoting the notion that the messiah has yet to arrive? Bus stop (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

To make that argument you have to claim that scholars are violating UCN, which as you know is totally nonsensical and defies the very idea of UCN in the first place. Good luck with that.Griswaldo (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who "won". I even doubt that there was anything to win to begin with. But I'm pretty sure that we all have lost something. DVdm (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that whatever title is chosen for these articles (myth, story, narrative, etc), all must have the same. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's not going to happen. DVdm (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused about how this was decided, as there were so many proposals floating around. Does anyone know exactly? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There was this (now still) open request, and suddenly someone decided to go ahead regardless. DVdm (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Ucucha if he could explain his reasoning. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

At first I agreed with Sarah's comment above, about all being the same, for the sake of consistency. But now have second-thoughts, because why must everything be consistent? I understand and respect the general rule of thumb for encyclopedias, but their have always been exceptions made. I just don't wish to see another HCM outbreak over this. --TK-CP (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that calling some a myth and one a narrative implies different treatment, and there's nothing in high-quality reliable sources that would justify different treatment. Personally I don't mind what they're called, but I do feel it needs to be the same in the interests of NPOV. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 11:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of you seem to be implying that the title substitute for the article. This is impossible — the article has to be read. The purpose of the title is to enable the reader to find the article. The content of the article can't be contained in the title. Furthermore WP:NPOV can't function in the confines of the space allotted to the title. It is a principle that requires the expansive space of the body of the article. All facets of this subject (except those in violation of WP:FRINGE) deserve representation in the body of the article. The article title is not the place for the representation of any of these facets. Bus stop (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I bow to SlimVirgin, and her Wikipedia expertise, to make the right decision here, and will agree that the others should also be changed from myth to conform with this article. On a personal note, seeing her in this thread brings back many fond old memories of times long gone by, and probably best forgotten! :P --TK-CP (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think each article should be treated independently. It seems artificial to me to think that we can decide what sort of title a whole slew of articles should take on. I think the specifics of each article should determine that. Bus stop (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems artificial to think that we can decide to treat the Genesis creation myth as the only creation myth that should not be called a creation myth. DVdm (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

But we are not deciding that, DVdm. We are only providing a title for the article. It is treated in multiple ways, supposedly, in the body of the article. One of those ways I am sure is as a "creation myth." But, why would that warrant a place in the title? Bus stop (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't kid yourself. Of course we are deciding that. DVdm (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Creation myth is one narrow characterization of what is the ostensible subject matter of this article. Preference shouldn't be given to any biases in the naming of this article. That would be equally applicable to those titles that might represent religious interests. But we haven't seen any titles suggested that would suggest the promotion of religion. Bus stop (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

DVdm ... you mean because of all the other entries like Enûma Eliš creation myth, Völuspá creation myth, and Rangi and Papa creation myth. Oh wait those aren't article titles. Please can people here do the bare minimum research before commenting. Look through the category creation myth because most of them do not have the term in the title. Period. (For the real entries referred to see Enûma Eliš, Völuspá and Rangi and Papa).Griswaldo (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment -- There is a serious misconception going around here that would not be going around if people simply did some research. Prof. M was trying to point this out above. Slim exemplifies the faulty assumption with the following statement -- "there's nothing in high-quality reliable sources that would justify different treatment". Actually Slim there is exactly that. This content does not have a consistent name in scholarship. One thing that those of us who have actually done research on this now know is that "Genesis creation myth" is one of the least utilized terms for this narrative (please see the many presentations of search results on this page). In scholarly use the current title is used just as often as Genesis creation myth, which is one of the reasons why it was not my first choice either. Versions using "story" are by far the most common in scholarship. Of course "narrative" and "story" are synonyms which in my mind gives narrative a leg up on the old title at the very least. The point here is that if we follow common use in scholarship in each individual case we will have inconsistent titles. If some of the ones listed are also not consistent with scholarship then we should do the research necessary to uncover that and change them too. If they are then so be it.Griswaldo (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, how on earth does WP:UCN support using an uncommon name for a title based on the logic of Wikipedians even if that defies common usage differences? I guess we should rename Beagle to Beagle hound to keep it consistent with Blood hound and Redbone Coonhound. After all they are all hounds aren't they?Griswaldo (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention those horrid little Corgi's! The belong to the Terriers. No disrespect to the Queen intended. --TK-CP (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap, I can't believe this is still going. Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Per WP:TALK "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic." We've come to a decision as to the page title. It wasn't my first choice, but it is a reasonable compromise. It's time to move on and improve the article, which is what this talk page is for.--agr (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

How exactly was the decision reached? It seems that someone just moved the article without a decision. · CUSH · 13:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis creation myth:
the rfm was Declined "as resolved. The title 'Genesis creation narrative' seems to have been agreed on"
--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at that, but that is no answer. That there seems to be agreement is not a valid justification for the article move. Can you please show me when and how exactly the consensus had been reached? · CUSH · 15:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin User:Ucucha determined there was a consensus for the requested move, made it and closed the discussion. See Requesting a move to the consensus title of "Genesis creation narrative", above. For what its worth, I counted 28 supports and 9 opposes. --agr (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Consistency with others

I haven't seen many claims that this article title should be treated according to special rules, and I wouldn't support that. I'd previously suggested alternate nomenclature for creation articles, such as replacing "creation myth" with "cosmogony" or other terms or directly replacing "creation myth" with "creation tradition". While I'm inclined toward consistenct article naming, I'm not sure it's our place to INSIST that articles related to creation must have consistent nomenclature. Of course, if "Chinese", "Sumerian", "Ancient Egyptian", "Pelasgian", "Tongan", "Mesoamerican", et al are in fact narratives, then it seems obvious those articles can be renamed to reflect that. But shouldn't we defer to editors more familiar the subjects of those articles? --AuthorityTam (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I highly suggest that editors stop and think for a few minutes about WP:UCN before leaping into this discussion. There is no such thing as "special treatment" if common use does not support the supposed consistency that people keep mentioning. The guideline is after all about common use first and foremost. Once again consider Beagle, which is a very common example of a hound, and which one could similarly ask to rename Beagle hound based on the notion that a bunch of other hounds have article titles like Blood hound, Foxhound or Bluetick Coonhound.Griswaldo (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a flawed analogy.

Every other creation myth that does not have its own name (e.g. "Enûma Eliš" for "Babylonian Creation myth") has "creation myth" in the article title. For motives rooted in the urge of religious editors to apply different rules for belief systems that are not their own this article has been renamed to drop the word "myth". It is not justifiable that WP follows these editors in applying different standards in assigning article titles. If we don't name the Judeochristian creation myth a creation myth, then we cannot name other creation myths as that. WP must never convey preference of one belief system over others. · CUSH · 15:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Cush — Judaism and Christianity are two different religions. Furthermore every article on Wikipedia has its own Talk page. There is also a WP:Village Pump where you can present the argument that you seem to be making that article naming in some cases is linked or related. It is my opinion that each article should be worked on via its own Talk page and involving the taking into consideration of its own internal logic and those considerations that might be unique to that article. But if you disagree I think the place to express that is at the Village Pump. Perhaps Wikipedia has other places for expressing that too. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note that scholars may be using different terms when naming various creation myths. In this case it appears they are. Please don't act like it's a matter of "religious editors" at Wikipedia.Griswaldo (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The title "Genesis creation myth" was the perfect title. It conveyed EXACTLY the scope and contents of the article. But it was indeed a matter of religious editors who saw their religion degraded by the term "myth" to a level that they would only want to see applied to other beliefs. I can recognize ulterior motives when I come across them. · CUSH · 15:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There is one set of rules. No one here is likely to contest changing an article title from "Placeholder creation myth" to "Placeholder creation narrative" (or similar). We just aren't sure if "narrative" (or similar) best titles THAT article. Editors familiar with "Placeholder" can decide that, without or with our input. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

edit break

Well, now that the move has been made, perhaps we can reflect on the denotation, as opposed to the connotation. Our readers are divided on the issue of supernatural creation - an idea which has much more than "fringe" support. But I wonder if we as contributors are skewed more toward the natural idea of creation than the average American or UK reader.

The first sentence of Creation myth points out that the term applies to a supernatural story or explanation. I wonder if the idea of anything supernatural seems so odd an idea to us (as a writing community) that we feel an urgent need to categorize it as belong to the realm of the made-up or the impossible: that we would not want to mislead readers into thinking that some equally valid alternative exists to the standard concepts of causality studied by devotees of physical science (see also Natural science).

I personally prefer article titles and article introductions to straddle the gap between faith in the supernatural and adherence to methodological naturalism, because I think this would be neutral. What do others think? (And if this is not the place for such a discussion, where should we take this thread?) --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC) --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately supernatural stuff does not seem odd to the average American reader.

I think the article should comprehensively present what Genesis has to say, how it is interpreted, and what its impact is. The interpretation section of course calls for a reality-check, i.e. an application of methodological naturalism to the fancy claims made in the creation myth. · CUSH · 16:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place.Griswaldo (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"Fancy claims"? Cush, aren't you even going to pretend not to be biased? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would I? I am biased towards reality. Claims concerning Yhwh and its "creation" fall into the same intellectual and philosophical category as claims concerning the Easter bunny. There is just no substance to them. You cannot seriously present the existence and actions of deities as a possible reality in an encyclopedia. That would be plain lying to the readers.

The only reason why religious editors are allowed to spread their nonsense, is that this WP is dominated by Americans. If this were the Chinese WP nobody would give such editors any credibility for a second. Local majorities are not overall majorities. And maintaining the position that the creation myth conveyed in the Bible is possibly or actually real is a far-out fringe position even among Jews and Christians. · CUSH ·

Cool. I'll just add that to the pile for your next RfC. Or possible ANI. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What cool? Articles have to be neutral. I don't. I will not allow you to constantly pour your insubstantial doctrines into WP articles. WP demands reliable sources. As long as you only describe faith, you may find reliable sources. But as soon as you hint at the actual existence of a deity, then there are no reliable sources. As simple as that. · CUSH · 21:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to chime in here, but going back to the statement that started off this section, I don't think it's important that we go and "Anceint Egyption Creation Myth" for the obvious reason that anyone who takes Anceint Egyption Creation Myth as litterally true is WP:FRINGE. The issue here was that "myth" has an element of "falsishness" to it. I don't think applying that to "Anceint Egyption Creation" is going to upset anyone. NickCT (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

How many folks believe in something has no relevance to its accurate description. The opening chapters of Genesis are a creation myth like all others. And it's not even a aesthetic or elaborate one. Subsequently, if we reject creation myth for the Judeochristian idea of the world's origin, we must also reject that for the other ideas. · CUSH · 21:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a think about it and I've changed my mind. I don't necessarily think all the other "creation myth" articles need changing. Yes, it's a fact that anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that the Genesis creation myth is just as valid as all those other myths, but I've come to realise that this is WP:BUTITSTRUE thinking. We have to go with what the reliable sources say, and since, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in this hideous trainwreck of a discussion, those sources predominantly either defer to the sensibilities of adherents of currently extant religions or are themselves such adherents, policy demands that we go along with their euphemisms. Unless we can show that reliable sources writing about the religions that have already died are predominantly using terms other than "creation myth", those articles should stay as they are.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's be content with content

Now that we have a title that reflects all POVs, let's keep populating those POVs.EGMichaels (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't reflect all POVs. Narrative is an absurd title, you can't have a narrative when the account is fictional and allegorical. Guy (Help!) 06:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Guy — for narrative I find this definition: "a story or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious." Bus stop (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

But for them the account is not fictional or allegorical. So they must and apparently will have a narrative. I think it's a matter of numbers and perseverance. DVdm (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

DVdm — who is the "them" that you are referring to? I think that is a version of the straw man argument. You are arguing against a non-specified entity. Bus stop (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If it still isn't clear by now who "them" is, then I will specify the entity: them is the group of people around here who are on a mission to make sure that the Genesis creation myth is the only creation myth that should not be called a creation myth. Anyone who fails to find that absurd should consult a dictionary. DVdm (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

DVdm — it is "called a creation myth" — in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If it is called a creation myth in the body of the article, then there can be no valid reason to not call it a creation myth in the title. That is utterly absurd. DVdm (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

DVdm — "Creation myth" would be "activist" in the title. Just as we would not want to characterize the subject matter as holy, sacred, or the word of God, so too it would be improper in a title to characterize the subject as a creation myth. Myth is not agnostic any more than sacred is agnostic. Titles should only identify articles and do no more. Bus stop (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

DVdm, meaning is dependent on context. In the body of the text we can link to creation myth and provide the necessary context. In the title this isn't possible. The main issue with the old title, however, was uncommon usage. This current one is on par with the old, but other usages are way more common -- "Biblical creation story" and "Genesis creation story" for instance. Scholars who have no problem with the myth category use these different terms for a reason, and we should follow them in the end. These supposedly "logical" arguments are not in line with policy as I understand it. They amount to editors deciding that such and such only makes sense so who cares if this is how experts do it we should do it my way.Griswaldo (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"In the title this isn't possible". It has been possible ever since the article was first created in 2004 up until yesterday, when someone finally gave in to a large number of people who apparently (see Til Eulenspiegel, below) feel their "major world religion" is somehow attacked by an article title. I find this pathetic. But hey, don't lose any sleep over what I happen to find pathetic :-) DVdm (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

DVdm just looking through the article archives shows that the page titles prior to this one have not been stable and have clearly not all had "creation myth" in them. Not long before "Genesis creation myth" came into effect (which was just months ago I believe) I know it was titled "Creation according to Genesis". I'm not sure how long that title was around but it appears in the earliest archived talk page discussions in 2004 so it clearly used to be a title at one point even back then, and possibly continually until now. I know that at least this time around as soon as the "Genesis creation myth" title came into effect (just this February) a whole lot of editors complained from a whole lot of different perspectives. So to claim that it has always had the myth name and that it was clearly not a problem before now is not correct at all.Griswaldo (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

In that case I gladly stand corrected. Thanks. Glad I'm not Jimbo ;-) - DVdm (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Guy didn't understand what a narrative is. No need to continue this, the definition Bus stop provided shows clearly that a narrative can be a story of any kind.Griswaldo (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Guy, you may be convinced that Genesis is fictional and allegorical, but do you see why wikipedia cannot be in the business of declaring which texts of which religions are or are not to be interpreted as fictional or allegorical, since everyone disagrees and has their own POV. Christianity and Judaism are major world religions, but even with minor religions, wikipedia cannot even declare Scientology to be a fictional "creation myth" even if you, I, and most of us agree that it is - because it is pushing a POV, the very opposite of the definition of "neutrality". If it were as simple as declaring something fictional only because you think it is, just try dealing with the Scientologists - you'll find out what nice folks they are about it. Multiply that by about ten thousand, and that's how easy it will be for you to use wikipedia to attack a MAJOR world religion like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"Multiply that by about ten thousand, and that's how easy it will be for you to use wikipedia to attack a MAJOR world religion like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc". On the one hand, as I said before, it's a matter of numbers and perseverance. Thanks for making my point. On the other hand, if you think that anyone is "attacking a MAJOR world religion" here, then I'm afraid that you really don't belong here. DVdm (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well don't hold your breath waiting for me to go away, because I wasn't planning to any time soon. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record: do you think that someone is "attacking a major world religion" here? DVdm (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

We should not be "writing" a title; we should be writing an article. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

@Til: If you are serious about that, then I recommend that you have a careful read (or re-read) of WP:AGF and specially WP:AOBF. Note that many users have gotten into trouble (by getting blocked or selectively banned) for failing to follow this guideline. Try to lighten up. Or be careful. DVdm (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so it's cool here for editors to put flags up on their home pages saying things like "All religion should be destroyed" (to let everyone know how neutral they are) and then these same editors can go all over the talk pages and unilaterally declare that the Bible canon is fiction and that the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed are nonsense, and that this is fact not opinion. But I cannot consider this an attack, or I will be blocked for it. I'm so glad you're not Jimbo. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh? You are glad I'm not Jimbo? Why is that? What would be different if I were Jimbo? How is this related to the title of this article? DVdm (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)