This is an archive of past discussions about Genesis creation narrative. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Without any discussion, the entire section on genre was summarily removed. Here is the text that was included...
In academic circles the Genesis creation narrative is often described as a creation or cosmogonic myth. The word myth comes from the Greek root for "story" or "legend", and describes a culturally significant or sacred account explaining the origins of existence by using metaphorical language and symbolism to express ideas. The text has also been variously described as historical narrative[1] (i.e., a literal account); as mythic history (i.e., a symbolic representation of historical time); as ancient science (in that, for the original authors, the narrative represented the current state of knowledge about the cosmos and its origin and purpose); and as theology (as it describes the origin of the earth and humanity in terms of God).[2]
Was this some preliminary move to try to strike the word "narrative" from the article? We already have whittled away the vast majority of the academic sources discussing the fact that the text was conceived as and should be viewed as historical narrative. There seems to be a concerted effort to ignore all but the most secular opinions on this topic. Shouldn't we consider the opinions of people who have spent their lives studying to understand this passage irrespective of their religious ideologies? Ἀλήθεια03:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
For instance, here are two excellent examples of academics who have contributed to the discussion about the genre of Genesis 1:
Feinberg, John S. (2006). "The Doctrine of Creation—Literary Genre of Genesis 1 and 2". No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God. Foundations of Evangelical Theology. Vol. 2. Good News Publishers. p. 577. ISBN1581348118.
Boyd, Steven W. (2008). "The Genre of Genesis 1:1-2:3:What Means This Text?". In Terry Mortenson, Thane H Ury (ed.). Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth. New Leaf Publishing Group. pp. 174 ff. ISBN0890515484. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ἀλήθεια (talk • contribs) 03:37, 28 February 2012
Thank you Aletheia. The section was removed because it's not really an adequate discussion of this very complex subject. To do it justice would require another article all its own, and would take us into an area which is, in the end, rather off the topic we want to treat, which is the social and historical origins of Genesis 1-2 and its original meaning. For a while we tried to go into the subsequent meanings (or interpretations, if you prefer) that the story acquired, in Second Temple Judaism, in early and later Christianity, and in rabbinic and modern Judaism, but it kept getting longer and longer and losing focus. Even now, we have an article which is already at the limits of acceptable length. PiCo (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I am in agreement, it should be immediately restored, an if an editor thinks it is inadequate, they always have the right to expound on the information provided, but there is no cause to remove an entire subheading without discussion. Willietell (talk) 05:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it should be restored. I am expanding it personally (that is, I targeted this specifically for expansion, and it will likely become one of half a dozen offspring of this one in a few months, as I'm around 201k with references now, and will probably be 215k when I reference just what is already written), but believe a stub summary is better than none at all. St John Chrysostomview/my bias18:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Well there seems to be a consensus for restoring. As I said above, I don't like this paragraph because it doesn't really say what needs to be said, and I say that as the one who wrote it in the first place. I could do a redraft and put it here for comment, or would one of you like to take it up? PiCo (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
It should definitely include Waltke's analysis on the genre. He and John Sailhamer are probably your best sources for an evangelical view. HokieRNB03:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
You can redraft and post it here for comments, of which I will be more than happy to provide (as you wrote it in the first place and have largely been the showrunner of this article), and I shall propose any amendments at that time (as I've not got that far in the article's expansion, I'm expanding the exegesis of the pericopes initially). St John Chrysostomview/my bias13:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
From your number of edits here (over 1100), I'm sure you've been at it a long time - I've been dealing with this article for just over a month, and I'm sure I'll burn out on it in another two (that is, I'm surprised you lasted as long as you did in the acrimonious atmosphere surrounding it). If you are not going to write it (or continue writing it) for the time being, do you wish to pass the torch, so that I may, until if you return? St John Chrysostomview/my bias09:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
With my blessings. And please, I'm not expressing any hostility to any of the editors in this thread, or indeed in the article, it's just general burn-out :) PiCo (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Why are editors claiming that all creation story articles have "myth" in the title?
One of the most common arguments among those who want to put "myth" into the title of this article is that all the other articles about creation stories call them "creation myth" in their titles, and that it would be NPOV to do otherwise here.
Either they haven't checked themselves, or they are relying on the fact that most people won't check for themselves. Because it's not true. If we go to List of creation myths, we find numerous counter-examples.
There are those which only give the name of the story:
But "at least thirty" is not all so there is no need to make this one part of "all" but rather it may remain part of the minority that don't use the term. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think your examples are really relevant, Lisa. The first four are myths known by the titles of the stories that express them but Genesis 1-2 doesn't have a title (though "Bereshit" sounds rather nice). Of the others, "Raven" isn't about a creation myth but about a mythical character, "Hiranyagarbha", so far as I can make out, is about a metaphysical concept expressed in a mythical form, and most of the others are collections of myths, not single unified stories like Genesis 1-2. Jamshid I'm not sure about. Overall, what's it matter? (I rather liked Lisa's original idea, by the way - not often I agree with Lisa, so that must mean something). PiCo (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
None of the ones on your second list are article-titles, so please don't pipe them to give the impression.
How many of these articles (and sections) have anything close to any sort of decent article status? 2 are rated stub class, another 6 are rated either start class or c class and only one is rated B class, the other two being unrated by any wikiproject. You appear to be scraping the bottom of the barrel with these articles. Again I also note why is another thread being created on the exact same issue instead of including it in the RFC as a comment. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The piped links are just blatantly dishonest, so the second list warrants no consideration at all. Is this really the level of professionalism we're dealing with?? Aside from that, the first list constitutes an invalid comparison, because the title of this article is not the specific name of a story (and calling this article simply Genesis does not work). (And one of the entries in the first list is a character, not a story.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Previous titles for this article
Request: I gather from something that was said above that this article was (at one point in the past) entitled "Creation according to Genesis". I kind of like that title, and would like to understand why we moved away from it... Unfortunately, I can not find it in the archives. Could someone provide a link to the discussion about it, or explain why we abandoned that title.? Blueboar (talk) 18:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
"Creation accounts in Genesis" since October 2004
"Creation according to Genesis" since November 2004
"Genesis creation myth" since February 2010 (from this discussion)
"Genesis creation narrative" since April 2010 (from this discussion)
For one, the article no longer deals with creation accounts only in Genesis. See the section labeled "Biblical creation mythology outside Genesis". The article should be moved to a different title based on that alone. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah you are right! that invalidates Srnec's argument that this article is about the specific text and not about Christian cosmogony. Thanks for pointing that out!·ʍaunus·snunɐw·00:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a valid point. The Bible is WP:COMMONNAME for the Christian Bible. This article's subject is not purely a Christian one. However "Creation according to the Bible" is a loaded title that implies a POV in its very name, and I'm not aware of any "X according to Y" articles existing anywhere on Wikipedia, except redirects and names of films, etc. Also, the article's subject is not Creation, let alone Creation from any point of view, the article's subject is the body of work itself, the text. - SudoGhost03:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the point ·ʍaunus is making when he says "which Bible?" is this: there's no single, agreed text of the Genesis creation story. Take the first few words: various translations give them "In the beginning God created..." or as "When God began creating..." Even if you go back to the Hebrew there are differences of opinion over just what words mean. In other words, "Creation according to the Bible" isn't as obvious a statement as it might appear. PiCo (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no name for this article that is any less disruptive than the name it has now (which I never went for myself). Nothing will squelch all complaining. Many names are tolerable with most while at the same time a distant runner for first choice. The name it has now is one of them. So for that reason, I'm against wasting any more time on renaming the article for the zthinzthiest time. It's just a merry-go-round. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the claim that "the article no longer deals with creation accounts only in Genesis", that is not really the case. The subsection Biblical creation mythology outside Genesis briefly contextualises the Genesis account in reference to other ancient Israelite mythology. It indicates how the account was influenced by earlier stories, but does not discuss any other specific myths.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The correct title, per policy, is Genesis creation myth, which is consistent with other creation myth articles. The other previous titles ignore WP:RNPOV by skirting the issue that the account in Genesis is just as much a creation myth as any other. If there is some concern that the scope of the article is broader than Genesis, then Biblical creation myths may be more accurate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
If you think this, you obviously haven't read WP:RNPOV or anything like that: "Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words [fundamentalism and mythology] only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." So the policy is actually discouraging the use of these words rather than mandating them. I see nothing in the policy that would suggest we use something other than the most common, recognizable name of the subject as the title. Kauffner (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Kauffner, I think you've misread RNPOV. The section you quoted does not say to avoid using the word mythology. It is discouraging use of its informal meaning. This idea is reiterated in the very next sentence, which says "editors should not avoid using terminology [fundamentalism and mythology] that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources". Per RNPOV, we should not avoid using the word mythology, we just need to use it in its academic sense, which we are. Furthermore, we're not using the term mythology alone. We're using creation myth, which has no informal definition with which it could be confused. — Jess· Δ♥04:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
That's disingenuous, at best. To someone who doesn't know the academic use of "myth", "creation myth" means a fairy tale about creation. And the issue isn't not using "myth", it's about clarifying the word in-text, which can't be done in a title. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you reading replies to you at all? RNPOV says confusion about the informal sense is not a factor in determining our use of myth (much less creation myth, which does not have an informal sense), and even if we decide to clarify its use, nothing is stopping us from doing so in the lead. This argument is a non-starter; it hasn't gained any support from anyone AFAICT. Please stop repeating it in every section. — Jess· Δ♥01:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Policy
There's no reason at all to change the title to Genesis creation myth. There is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policy that requires cookie-cutter titles for articles. When there is a major view -- not fringe, however much militant religiophobes may claim otherwise -- that says the account is true, using a word that absolutely has an extremely common connotation of "imaginary" is inappropriate for the title. It is reasonable to include the word in the lede, while clarifying in-text (and not merely via hyperlink) that the word is not being used in the sense of "imaginary", but rather in its academic sense. But apparently, extremists are going to keep fighting to push their religiophobic agenda.
They managed to change the article to Genesis creation myth once for a couple of months. It is not a stable change, and is not "the correct title, per policy", no matter how much Jeffro and his friends claim it is.
An important note on using the term "fundamentalism": In studies of religion, this word has a very specific meaning. Wikipedia articles about religion should use this word only in its technical sense, not "strongly-held belief", "opposition to science", or "religious conservatism", as it is often used in the popular press. Take care to explain what is meant by this term in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. As religion is an emotional and controversial topic, Wikipedia editors should be prepared to see some articles edited due to seemingly minor quibbles. Stay civil and try not to take discussions too personally.
While this speaks about "fundamentalism", rather than "myth", the principle is the same. And to demonstrate that Wikipedia policy views them the same way, this is directly from WP:RNPOV:
Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at words to avoid.
I attempted to modify both of these entries so that each took the other into account, but my edits were reverted. (In case anyone tries to suggest that I was being sneaky.) But the point is this:
WP:RNPOV says that the word myth should not be avoided just because readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. This means that the article should use the word. It says nothing whatsoever about the title, mind you. It also says that words should be used in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense. It does not say, as has been claimed here, that the formal terms must be used. It says that if you are going to use words like "myth", use them only in their formal sense. And it expresses concern about causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader, which certain editors here have claimed is not a Wikipedia policy concern. WP:RNPOV states otherwise.
WP:NPOVFAQ#Religion says that when loaded terms are used, "Take care to explain what is meant by this term in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." Again, the concern about causing unnecessary offense is stated.
The sole argument that has been made in favor of changing the title to Genesis creation myth is that not doing so would be inconsistent. But I've read through WP:TITLE, and I've found no mention whatsoever of this supposed policy. The claim that consistent titles are necessary in order to comply with NPOV is an interesting theory, but lacks substance.
The conclusions to be drawn from this are clear:
This article should not be changed to Genesis creation myth, though there's nothing wrong with having that as a redirect, as is now the case.
The article must state that the Genesis creation narrative is a creation myth.
The article must clarify, in-text, that it is a creation myth in the academic sense of the term.
Except for the first bullet point (which seems paradoxical in light of the two subsequent bullets) I agree completely. Your opinion regarding lack of substance is quaint to say the least - it seems quite natural that parity between the vocabulary used to refer to different religions falls under NPOV whether it is explicitly mentioned in the poilicy or not - otherwise we'll just turn into conservapedia where the Bible is the Word of God and all else is "superstition and lies".·ʍaunus·snunɐw·14:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
You're really grasping at straws here. Firstly, it's not the only argument that's been advanced, so that's one strawman down (as a matter of fact I advanced several arguments and none of them had to do with inconsistency). Secondly, there is nothing in that text that would lead a reasonable man to conclude that it applied to article content but not titles. If NPOV only applied to article content it would be a pretty big loophole and we would end up with many non-neutral titles (e.g. "Santorum (Neologism)"). Lastly, I submit the Muhammad/Images Arbcom case once more as a demonstration of the principle that wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. A handful of editors tried to remove depictions of Muhammad on the grounds that it would offend hundreds of millions of Muslims and at the end of the day the pictures stand and the main proponent of removing them was banned for a year. This community is strongly against censorship.
As an aside, when you make remarks like "Jeffo and his friends" it painfully demonstrates that you have a WP:BATTLEGROUND, us vs. them mentality. This is supposed to be a civil discussion and when you lump people into groups and make snide remarks it doesn't help any. Try using neutral terms like "those in support;" there's no need to make this personal by insinuating some sort of cabal or relationship between editors that doesn't exist. I have never seen many of the people involved in this RM, Jeff included. NoformationTalk20:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of strawmen. No one is talking about censorship. If you actually read what I wrote, I think I made it abundantly clear that the term creation myth has to be used. What's your real objection to including a clarification? Don't you think it shows bad faith to be against such a simple thing? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I knew Lisa posted this new section by the time I finished the first paragraph. I must be psychic. Lisa's continued ad hominem and distortion of policy is getting tiresome. The fact that Lisa tried to modify a policy while involved in a dispute directly related to that policy is also highly questionable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Impressive. First Noformation accuses me of strawman arguments and then immediately makes a strawman argument, and then Jeffro, complaining about ad hominems immediately engages in an ad hominem argument. Jeffro, address the policy issues cited above. That's all that matters here. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
It is not ad hominem to discuss user conduct in the context of user conduct. It is ad hominem to claim that an argument is flawed on the basis that you don't like the editors raising it. Aside from that, you haven't raised any valid policy issues here. You've arbitrarily decided that a quite specific "important note on using the term "fundamentalism"" automatically applies to myth. The only relevant part is that already stated at WP:RNPOV—that such terms should be used in their technical sense, which is indeed the case here. Further, WP:NPOV states of titles, "In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." This is certainly the case for articles about creation myths, and is the case with articles about other creation myths. (Some creation myth articles are named for the specific title of the myth instead. However, there is no specific title of the creation myth found in Genesis.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, I didn't accuse you of creating a strawman, I observed it as you very clearly did. It is a fact that there have been arguments in favor of the move that are not based on consistency, and for you to state that it is the "sole" argument and then attempt to destroy it is simply fallacious. Secondly, I have no problem with clarifying what myth means in the lede, I had a problem with your particular edit because it was sloppy. If you'll notice my comments leading to this RM, I specifically introduced the idea of a move based on a text proposal that moved "Creation myth" to the first part of the sentence and then clarified the meaning. Furthermore, what I said was not a straw man, it was in direct response to "And editors should bear in mind that Wikipedia policy does concern itself with avoiding unnecessary offense." The actual argument I advanced used an example of a group of editors who attempted to remove content because it was offensive to hundreds of millions of Muslims. While there are literally a couple sentences in policy in favor of restricting content based on offense, there is much, much more that removes offense from the equation. None the less, and as has been pointed out, WP:RNPOV only prescribes that terms such as myth be used in their formal sense to avoid causing unnecessary offense - that's it, there are no other prescriptions aside from that one, very minor thing that we are already doing. You cannot read into that policy and conclude that our primary goal is to minimize offense. This encyclopedia is far more concerned with accuracy. Lastly, yes I am an extremist, a fundamentalist even, when it comes to following sources (and I mean both those terms in their academic sense). Our encyclopedia is built on the idea that Lisa's opinion on the content of a source does not matter. This is the very essence of NPOV. It does not mean to be "fair and balanced," it means to follow the sources dispassionately and without injecting your opinion on the WP:TRUTH value. NoformationTalk21:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
As regards Policy... I think heart of this dispute centers on two sections of WP:TITLE... the goal of Consistency - which would support "Genisis creation myth" (as being consistent with the titles of similar articles}, and the provision requiring Neutrality in Article Titles (and specifically the sub-section on "non-judgmental descriptive titles", short-cutted as WP:NDESC) - which would support the more neutral "Genesis creation narrative"). Now, the goal of Consistency is just that - a goal. It is important, but it is not a requirement or "rule". WP:NDESC, on the other hand is a requirement or "rule". It ties directly into one of Wikipedia's core policies (WP:NPOV). For this reason, I would favor "Narrative" over "Myth". That said, I think there are other non-judgmental descriptive titles that would be even better. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense because what is being aimed by preferring "myth" for is not just consistency but neutrality -because it is not neutral to use "myth" for some religions and "narrative" for others - that is clearly wikipedia letting one religion adopt its own preferred usage but not extending the courtesy to others. This makes "myth" the only truly neutral choice even if some laymen or people who interpret it through its acnient greek etymology may not understand this.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·21:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, I read WP:TITLE, and it says explicitly that while consistency is a goal, it is not a rule. And it explains why. And no one, to the best of my knowledge, has asked for those other articles to have their titles changed. If they did, perhaps that would be the correct step to take. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
This has been asked elsewhere, but why is Genesis creation narrative more neutral than Genesis creation myth? The only argument I've seen thus far has been that some readers may confuse myth to mean falsity, but per WP:RNPOV that cannot be a factor in our judgement, since we are using the academic sense, and are an academic encyclopedia. The only other way I can interpret neutrality is "what the sources commonly say", and the independent reliable sources we have don't shy away from calling it a creation myth. That means UCN, NDESC and RNPOV support the proposal, so what is more neutral about narrative? — Jess· Δ♥21:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:RNPOV doesn't say what you're claiming. It says that the word must be used; it does not say it must be used in the title. And since WP:NPOV/FAQ#Religion says that terms which might cause offense should be explained (which can't be done within a title, but can be done in the lede of the article), it's pretty clear that policy supports keeping "myth" in the lede and not the title, and that even there, that it should be explained in-text that the word is not being used in the common, colloquial, non-academic sense of "fairy tale". - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Lisa, others have been over this with you. There's no indication anywhere that WP:NPOV does not apply to titles, nor is there any reason that if we change the title, the lead cannot include a clarification if needed. Furthermore, WP:NPOV/FAQ says nothing about mythology requiring clarification (much less creation myth). It talks of fundamentalism specifically, and without the change you inserted to bolster your argument here, there's no reason I can see to suppose the section on fundamentalism applies to other distinct terminology. — Jess· Δ♥00:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
And really, I don't care if Lisa thinks that her edit to a policy FAQ is innocuous, no one should be editing a policy page that applies to a dispute in which they are involved. Seriously bad form. NoformationTalk00:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
It appears Lisa simply ignored what is stated about title in the policy that I provided in my previous edit above. WP:NPOV states of titles, "In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." It's curious that Lisa is quick to claim that a 'principle' about a quite specific statement about the use of fundamentalism 'must' apply to myth, and yet Lisa does not perceive any such clarity in applying a 'principle' about article content to titles, particularly when the policy makes a similar direct statement about titles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
You're arguing against yourself. The academic usage of "creation myth" is not likely to be well recognized by readers. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Please provide evidence of that. I've seen a lot of editors remove creation myth from the article, but I've seen no reason to suspect they're doing so because of confusion and not (like similar edits to Age of the earth) due to disliking the characterization of their religious beliefs. Creation myth has only one definition, academic or not, and it is clearly wikilinked for any reader to examine. — Jess· Δ♥01:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I've seen no evidence to support the claim that the term creation myth is 'unknown', or that it is any less known than creation narrative. To my knowledge, no one has complained about the titles of all the other creation myth articles as having 'unrecognised' titles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
@Blueboar Two points: 1. A word does not become loaded simply because there is a subset of the population that doesn't understand it. For instance, the word wikt:woo woo was recently claimed to be offensive by an editor at acupuncture because he thought it had negative connotations wrt Chinese people - but his perception of the word as racist didn't actually mean the word was racist. In the same way, "myth" is the term preferred by scholars and it carries no negative implications in its formal sense. It doesn't matter that there are Christians who may not understand the term, it only matters what the term means. 2. You used WP:NDESC as an argument against myth but the policy states "[h]owever, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources." WP:NPOV#NAMING goes on to state "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." NoformationTalk21:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
But the academic usage of "creation myth" is not likely to be well recognized by readers. That's just the point. And that's why it's a problematic term that needs to be clarified in-text and not used in the title. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
What evidence do you have to support that assertion? That people remove the phrase? There are myriad reasons why people might remove it from the lede and we have no reason to assume that a lack of understanding is the driving factor. Also, as far as I'm aware there is no difference between the academic and non-academic uses of the phrase creation myth, although in academia the word myth is used differently in some but not all scenarios. That genesis is a creation myth is not a contentious statement outside of certain circles and those circles are not the people to whom we give weight. NoformationTalk01:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Genesis creation myth and Genesis creation narrative have equal neutrality in my opinion. While Wikipedia-wide consistency favors myth, the rational opposes cite narrative as being more common. Jesanj (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Ironically, as I recall, the very line of 'policy' that keeps being trumpeted by a minority of editors (who nevertheless write the vast majority of words here) as obviating all other considerations, was itself boldly penned in a few years back IIRC, by an editor who was also very highly involved in pushing what I call the Enver Hoxha POV - ie the one that says "the only sources to be deemed reliable or mentionable shall be those that equate all religion (or religion xyz we don't like) with mythology". This act of wikipedians creating policy ad hoc as you go along, started up quite a big furor at the time, too. Which makes one wonder how it could be any more valid than what Lisa tried to write. For 10 cents I would look through the archives from 5-6 years ago and see who that editor was. I'm sure that's what would be found if anyone were bothered to look. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The Correct Human & Zenkai251
Not sure why The Correct Human's vote was removed. I understand that the user was a sockpuppet of Zenkai251, but Zenkai251 has not yet voted. Pointing to the appropriate policy would be sufficient. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Socks are not valid editors. They have no right to vote, even if the puppetmaster hasn't. A sock is not the same as a legitimate alternate account. Both Zenkai and the sock are gone forever now. Too bad, because he was a rather good editor on music related articles, just hopelessly incompetent on religion-related ones. It would have been better if we had topic-banned him months ago instead of giving him WP:ROPE. He could have been a very peroductive editor. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
1) That's standard practice, 2) this isn't a vote, 3) Zenkai did, indeed, !vote and comment multiple times, although he didn't advance any argument. — Jess· Δ♥01:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
There are valid reasons to have socks, but Zenkai251 did not appear to have one. I do understand how a good editor in one area can be a bad editor in another. I didn't read the editor's comments here. Also, Zenkai251 did not vote as in support or opposed to the move, although did comment. Thanks. This thread is ready to archive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I was looking for the full name, not a stylized signature.
I did read WP:SOCK and your suggestion that it does not mean alternate account is not correct. See WP:SOCK#LEGIT. A sockpuppet may be legitimately used as an alternate account in some instances. Maunus's statement is supported by WP:ILLEGIT.
That said, the use by Zenkai251 was definitely not legitimate, particularly when he pumps his sock's opinions using his own account. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
That section details legitimate uses of alternate accounts. A sock is not an alternate account. The very top of WP:SOCK says "the use of multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors...or otherwise violate community standards and policies is called sock puppetry". A sock is, by definition, illegitimate. — Jess· Δ♥02:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
@Walter: [WP:SOCK#LEGIT]] specifically states that legitimate alternate accounts are NOT sockpuppets. Be careful with the terminology because calling a legitimate account a "sock" would be offensive. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Even though I agreed with much of Zenkai's sentiments (if not his methods - especially sockpuppetry - or skills in rhetoric), this appears to be an open-and-shut case of sockpuppetry. The only way I think it could have been handled better would have been to have a neutral admin instead of Seb - one of the most outspoken and caustic opponents of the "keep" position in this debate - implement the ban, but that's not really a problem, as it's a "redline" policy. Hmm... I wonder if I should buy my female friend (I wonder if she's got her account auto-confirmed yet? User:VinElendel) a hotel room so she can join the fray without sharing my IP address? Oh... she'd probably vote against me (evolutionary biologists aren't known for their religiosity). And the jig is up anyways. Nevermind </sarcasm> St John Chrysostomview/my bias13:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Seb isn't an admin on the English wikipedia. Zenkai was banned [2] by User:Favonian block log: [3] who doesn't seem to have commented on this case, so I don't see how it could have been better handled. Also asking your female friend to vote seems like off wiki canvassing. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I looked at Zenkai's userpage and saw Seb. If he didn't do the ban, I agree that it was handled perfectly. Asking my friend (and getting her a hotel room so she could have a different IP address) is most definitely off-wiki canvassing - I had meatpuppetry more in mind. That's why I added the </sarcasm> tag, as well as asserting that she'd be unlikely to share my view (although for POV reasons - if it denigrates religion, it's her Gospel). St John Chrysostomview/my bias18:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I won't miss him. He was a troll. He will be back anyway. Eventually his hands will get cold and he will put some socks on to keep warm.--Adam in MOTalk06:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't be too sure. Most of his edits certainly didn't seem trollish. You seem to have a very broad stereotype about sock puppeteers -- anyway, back to the topic, shall we? Wekn reven15:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Possibly not, because it doesn't feature in the Quran. On the other hand, if there are sources on which to base worthwhile content... FormerIP (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Since Genesis is widely accepted as a holy book in Islam there is very likely to be relevant writings, and if they are found and are important then the section should exist. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Genesis is not widely accepted as a holy book in Islam. Islam holds that previous revelations have been corrupted and are of little or no value. PiCo (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I looked for sources in both English and Arabic a week or two ago, as I was going to include a section on Genesis and Islam. There are none, let alone any academic ones. PiCo is right: none of the Bible, unless it agrees with something stated in the Koran, is viewed as a holy book in Islam, but viewed as tahrif, corrupted. Many Muslims will say, "Oh, the entire Bible hasn't been corrupted, we just don't accept the parts that are corrupted, only prophecies of Muhammad/things about Jesus being God/etc. are the corrupted parts", but you'll never pin them down on which parts are legit and which ones aren't, except, "if it agrees with the Koran or a sahih hadith, it is legit, if it doesn't, it's not" - and the Koran is very short, about the length of the Gospels and Acts combined. This is borne out by the fact that there is no literature on the matter - the creation myth literature in Islam has almost solely to do with whether the world was created in 6 or 8 days (as two different passages give different numbers), and reconciling those passages. There is no lower or higher criticism, at all (there has been a grand total of ONE book published on it, called "the Syriac reading of the Koran"). There are a few WP:SPS on how Genesis backs up the 6-day side of the Koran debates (which is the generally accepted one), but they only deal with Gen 1:1-26, and don't pass muster as WP:RS. After that, it (the Genesis text) starts talking about Man naming the animals (Allah names them in Islam, and then tells Adam), Man being created on earth (in Islam, man is created in Heaven and cast down to earth), original sin (why Man was cast out is never stated in the Koran, except for "sin"), no mention of Satan/Iblis refusing to bow or the fall of angels (which plays a major role in the Surah al-Baqara and gives a completely different chronology for the fall of the Host than in Christianity), etc. - and that's just in the second and beginning of the third chapters of Genesis alone! St John Chrysostomview/my bias08:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if this book is accepted by any other religion, such as Baha'i'ism, as the Baha'is accept many other religion's books, in my experience. However, I don't know where to look for Baha'i literature. I'm sure there are individual, say, Hindus, who read it and appreciate it, just as I read the Mahabharata and some of the Vedic hymns and appreciate them, but I've never heard of the religion itself accepting it. I suppose we could add a section, "Genesis in other religions", and say something such as, "Jews and Christians find this book inspired. Other religions do not." The individual opinions of certain adherents of a religion don't seem to matter nor be reliable: following that specific logic (I am not suggesting anyone beyond me has even proposed it yet), one would have to include large swathes of the Apocrypha, OT and NT (i.e. Pseudepigrapha, not deuterocanonicals/Protestant apocrypha) as "canonical" because some neo-Gnostics hold them to be such, etc. St John Chrysostomview/my bias08:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Why not include neither narrative nor myth?
I'm an uninvolved administrator, and at the request of a noticeboard I spent quite a bit of time reviewing arguments and I can find no consensus. I've never edited nor participated in this article, so here's an idea: title the article "Genesis Creation" and leave it at that. No narrative, no story, no myth, just the topic of Genesis creation. An alternate title could be along the lines of "Genesis creation (biblical)". I understand the arguments that will come for using any of the descriptors, but this is a compromise to maintain NPOV and integrity. Thoughts? Keegan (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Will we also do the same with all other creation myth articles? 'Genesis Creation' as a title isn't really a thing, and leaving out the descriptor would be to "avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view", which the policy tells us not to do. The alternative would be if there is a distinctive title for the account in common usage, but I'm not aware that any exists.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Understood, but we don't have a standard here. What we do on one article doesn't have to be what we do on another. It is quite apparent that "narrative" versus "myth" is esoteric and left for us to discuss, and we can't agree. So what name will work? Keegan (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The fact is that use of myth is not esoteric. It is the term used in academic sources, and is the term used for other articles about creation myths, and it is a term specifically addressed at WP:RNPOV. What compelling policy-based rguments do you see for not using the term?--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
What we label things is very important. Consensus is garnered from an agreement to abide by a particular terminology, and we do not have that here nor across the English Wikipedia. We document creation and the stories surrounding it, but it is remiss to use terminology like narrative or myth, which is what the discussion pointed out. In my experience and knowledge of policy and practice, I read the discussion to lack consensus based on practical Wikipedia practice and naming conventions. I'm familiar with the policies such as RNPOV, and I do not feel contradictions in the discussion disprove the naming. If you read over the discussion, there is no consensus. This doesn't mean anyone is right or wrong, but there is no agreement. Keegan (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Based on what you believe is "remiss"? It is not "remiss" to use terminology that reliable sources use, especially when Wikipedia policy specifically says it is not "remiss" to do so. A contentious subject will never have an "agreement", and this is not what a consensus is. The issue with images of Mohammad still does not have an "agreement that all sides would abide by", but it does have a consensus. This is not a vote, consensus is not an "agreement to abide", if that were the case, any disagreement would by default be "no consensus". - SudoGhost07:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
You are mischaraterising my comment. From our policy:
"When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerned. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular "perfect" version immediately. The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view."
I do not see this supposed lack of consensus, what I see is a closing admin that seems to misunderstand the policies that they are supposed to be taking into consideration when closing the RM. You stated "it is remiss to use terminology like narrative or myth" however your comment is contradicted by a core Wikipedia policy, WP:RNPOV ("editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources") which specifically mentions mythology as an example. This very policy is the one that has been quoted dozens of times in the RM, so anyone that read the RM should have been very aware of its existence and its contents; it does not give me any measure of confidence in a closing admin that would read this policy in the RM and then give a reasoning that directly opposes this policy. This seems to further suggest that, even if this was truly a "consensus" based close, as opposed to the "vote" based closed that it appears to be, inappropriate weight was given to arguments that "myth is not a proper word to use", despite the policy that says otherwise.
If I am mischaracterizing your oddly timed mention of "2/3 people to agree on anything" being the "threashhold for promotion on anything here", then why did you make that comment in regards to closing this RM? A consensus is not a vote or a popularity contest, yet your comment seemed to suggest that the number of "opposes" and "supports" was the determining factor in your "no consensus" decision, which you then backed up with a reasoning that directly violates Wikipedia policy. The number of opposing and supporting comments is irrelevant to a consensus, which is why your "2/3...threshold for promotion on anything here" comment is concerning. Did the number of editors commenting on this play a factor in how you closed the RM? If so, then this RM was closed as a vote, not a consensus. If this was not a factor in how the RM was closed, then why make the comment? Again, what argument, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, creates this lack of consensus? - SudoGhost07:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I would also be interested in hearing what argument was given against this core policy that the closing admin weighed up that led to "no concensus". IRWolfie- (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
My opinion on policy and this matter is unrelated to the closure, because I'm uninvolved. The opposes do a reasonable job arguing against the move just as validly as those supporting it. This results in no concensus Not closing as Keep, not closing as Move, closing as we can't agree to even disagree. Again, I never mentioned counting votes or tallying opinions as votes in any way. These are words being put into my mouth so I am not going to defend a stance that isn't mine. Keegan (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't asking for your opinion on policy; I was asking which oppose arguments you are specifically referring to. You did not provided the actual rational for the no concensus close. Such as it was argued that policy y led to... but it was counter-argued that...'. I don't think this is unreasonable. What gave the oppose arguments this validity specifically? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I can work with that. The supporters feel that the move falls well within our policy on keeping a neutral point of view relating to religion; indeed the word mythology is mentioned there. However, a vast number of the opposition feel that this application of RNPOV is incorrect and doesn't skirt being inflammatory. In an environment where we don't have "rules" in the strictest sense of the word and policies and guidelines instead, it smacks the discussion in the face to say that there opinions do not matter because a particular wording of a policy is favorable to one group. I'm not allowed to look at the discussion and say "Yep, they're right, that's what RNPOV says so that's what goes" because it the opinions of others in the discussion, not my own, that matter. That's the point of being uninvolved. This website would be a much more fantastic place to work than it already is if we could learn to be objective about the opinions of others and not quite so dismissive because there's an out. Noformation has proven my point with the post just below this one. Absolutely no respect given to the opinions of the opposition or the close. It's a pity. Keegan (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually no, our opinions are not supposed to matter one tiny bit and your post demonstrates that somehow you've been an admin for 5 years but haven't actually understood WP:NPOV nor how this place is supposed to work (I'm sure you do fine work in other areas but in regards to your interpretation of policy you are simply and utterly wrong). You just pretty much acknowledged that policy says one thing but that the feelings and opinions of a particular group whose views are not in line with that policy trumped what the policy actually said. In other words, you gave weight to numbers as you had been accused of. Ask yourself: if there were only 1 person on the oppose side and that person said everything that all the opposes did, would you have still closed no consensus? I seriously doubt it, and I don't know if you realize that what you wrote above pretty much condemns your close but either way it's not done. If you don't want to reverse and let three admins who understand this area of WP deal with this then this will have to be escalated. Please just do the right thing, step back, drop the ego and let this be resolved correctly.
And actually, yes, your job in this matter was literally to look at the discussion and say "Yep, they're right, that's what RNPOV says so that's what goes." When you ignore policy then by default you are considering arguments that may be out of line with that policy and in this case that's exactly what you did. NoformationTalk00:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Because editors "feel" RNPOV is incorrect, it overwrites a core policy? This is not a question of an "interpretation of policy", it is spelled out very clearly, and a local consensus does not negate a policy, especially a core policy. The closing admin has demonstrated that tjeu are not capable of closing this RM, given the statements that are directly and clearly contradictory to core policy, and the very questionable statements of a "vote" based closed, which the closing admin have repeatedly refused to address. I am asking the closing admin one more time: please reverse your close, and allow other administrators to close this. If your close is indeed correct, then other administrators will undoubtedly come to the same conclusion, and would remove any doubt to the authenticity of this close. As it stands, however, this close is based on a demonstrably false reasoning, and should not have been closed by this admin. If the admin will not reverse this close, then steps will be taken to reverse it for them. If this cannot be done, then another RM will be opened, with the very strong recommendation that this closing admin not have any involvement in the closing of the RM. As it would, to my understanding, simply be a repetition of this current RM, the simpler answer would be to allow another administrator (preferably 3) to close this RM. - SudoGhost00:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Im usually not the type to be this blunt or vulgar but your close was utter, sloppy bullshit and it demonstrates serious carelessness as an administrator. Your rational explains nothing about how the oppose side demonstrated that their argument is consistent with policy. The reason that people keep pointing out that consensus is not a vote is because people are astonished by a no consensus closure on what seems to be an obvious choice and thus assume that you must have given weight to the numbers. If you had actually explained your rational then perhaps this would not be the case. Exactly what policy based arguments counter the fact that our NPOV policy specifically uses "myth" as the example to demonstrate the policy? What policy based arguments were presented against the fact that editor opinion on the term is irrelevant and that what matters is whether the term has been used non-contentiously by a majority of the reliable sources? You seem to indicate that there are policy based arguments that trump NPOV - what are they?. I don't doubt at least some of the opposition is also astonished by the close because it seemed pretty fucking clear cut. So please explain yourself. This was an incredibly contentious issue and you should have walked a finer line; if you're not willing to answer questions then you should not have been the closing admin. NoformationTalk23:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
You are treating this exactly like a vote: However, a vast number of the opposition feel that this application of RNPOV is incorrect and doesn't skirt being inflammatory.. The number of objections should be irrelevant, it is all about the arguments, concensus building is not a vote. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
A couple editors (myself and noformation included) asked for a 3 admin close. This is a fairly contentious issue that's been running for a long time, and I think that's important. Was that not possible? — Jess· Δ♥06:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems unlikely that other administrators are going to override a decision in such a long discussion that has already been made by 1 admin, hence it was requested that 3 admins close it. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Typical scumbag wikipedians. Don't get own way in debate. Accuse admin of treating it as popularity contest/vote. First reviewing administrator doesn't agree with you? "NO WAIT GUYS lets have it best of 3! We need 3 closures!" - Good to see you guys feel arguing over a pointless rename is more important than, you know, actually writing encyclopedic content. Gotta push that PoV! --86.25.205.193 (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
We agree to a 3 admin close BEFORE the closure. This is fully consistent with what was agreed in the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you please also clarifiy "why Neither argument successfully generates an encyclopedic name for the article.". IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
That was just my opinion, there, and that's why I posted suggesting other alternatives since there is no traction in the discussion between the terms already being discussed.
Comment. Everyone does realize that the RFC is supposed to be the RFC, and that an additional admin has lent his support to the closure above (which makes it a close even on a 2-1 vote of a 3-admin panel, as far as I am aware - honest statement, there are some esoteric policies here), but, this now appears to be turning in to an RFC on the admin's actions! Can we agree to disagree (for now, until the next inevitable RFC) and let the decision of two admins stand, and WP:AGF in the admins - they are admins for a reason (earned the trust of the community, etc., etc.)! As far as I understand it, it isn't the job of the admin to distill the arguments for everyone, when, no matter how they are distilled, no matter to what proof, those who oppose the close will still oppose it, and those who don't still won't. (I have never been involved from beginning to end in one of these before, so please excuse my ignorance on esoteric matters of implementation.) St John Chrysostomview/my bias00:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Another admin who gave no justification but simply stated that they agree adds nothing to this, nor would 10 more. I've been involved with dozens of RFCs/AFDs/etc and even on less contentious issues there is usually a fully written justification on the topic. Admins don't get to vote either, that's not the point of asking for a three admin close. So no, I don't think that this is the end of it at all and this very well may turn into an RFC on an administrator if Keegan isn't willing to be reasonable. The issues totally aside for a moment, it was just sloppy adminship and I promise you that I would be saying the exact same thing if this was another issue with which I were not involved. NoformationTalk00:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
If there are discrepancies with a close it is perfectly acceptable to ask for a detailed rationale. Assuming good faith doesn't mean we assume everyone is perfect. Rather, it means when there is a mistake we take it that it wasn't with bad intent, but it doesn't mean we ignore it, it still must be dealt with. That the close was sloppy should be dealt with, but we still assume that Keegan acted in good faith by trying to perform the close. It appears he operated from a misunderstanding that these discussions are effectively votes, this should not be glossed over. Mistakes happen, even admins are not perfect. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I have made a request for it on his talk page, hopefully this will be added to the appropriate section so we can at least see his full reasoning [4]. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
First of all, let's get a few things straight here. The RfC was about adding a clarification to the text of the lede to make it clear that the term "creation myth" is being used the academic way, and not the common/colloquial way that the vast majority of readers will be familiar with. Keegan, who is being badgered by a bunch of sore losers, closed the RM; not the RfC. So I've changed the title of this section to reflect that.
People keep stating and restating the untruth that there is a "core policy" which supports the side of those who wanted to move the article. SudoGhost wrote:
however your comment is contradicted by a core Wikipedia policy, WP:RNPOV ("editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources") which specifically mentions mythology as an example.
This is ridiculous. No one was talking about not using the term during the RM. The RfC most certainly didn't suggest omitting the term. The RM was started, in bad faith, right in the middle of an RfC by Jeffro77. It should have been shut down on the spot as an inappropriate interference in the RfC process and an attempt to stifle the discussion that was going on at the time. The diff that the RfC was about can be seen here. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The only bad faith move I have seen on this page - all support and opposition included, even those with whom I strongly disagree - is when you edited a policy page that directly applied to a dispute in which you were involved. Other than that everyone here has generally been acting as they should be. For you to even bring up the notion that another editor edited in bad faith by requesting a move that at the time had little opposition in the RFC is ludicrous and hypocritical in the face of your actions here. If someone had taken you to AN/I before it got stale I don't doubt that you would have either been severely admonished or blocked; you're lucky that editors were more concerned with the issue than your behavior. NoformationTalk02:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The statement you quoted is taken out of context. The comment that "No one was talking about not using the term during the RM" has absolutely nothing to do with the statement you quoted, I was not addressing the RM, I was addressing the closing admin, who was "talking about not using the term." (what was specifically said was "it is remiss to use terminology like narrative or myth", and the statement you quoted was addressing this, not the RM). This was not a comment that WP:RNPOV "supports the side of those who wanted to move the article" but that the closing admin's statement contradicted this policy. Please be more careful before you state that what others write is "ridiculous", I certainly don't appreciate this, especially because what you thought was "ridiculous" about it was that it was directed towards the RM, when it was not. - SudoGhost03:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Lisa's false accusation of 'bad faith' is noted and categorically rejected. The requested move was very clearly based on policy. On the other hand, modification of a policy-related article pertaining to a dispute in which one is involved constitutes 'bad faith', as does providing a list of 'article titles' that are actually piped links.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The RFC was a no-brainer, as the issue is explicitly addressed in policy. (I have linked the term to make it clear I am using it in its usual sense, to circumvent any tedious accusation of calling any individual 'brainless'.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The RfC that was pending when Jeffro77 decided to try and circumvent it with a move request, was about keeping the phrase creation myth in the lede, and clarifying it there so that no one can complain the term is being censored, and no one can complain that the term is being used in such a way as to confuse readers. It's a compromise, people, which is what Wikipedia is about. I've edited the lede to fit. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I haven't seen you make an edit yet, but please don't edit the lead until you have consensus to do so. This is a contentious issue, and that won't help matters. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥02:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
In this case I disagree with you, Jess. Now the lead sentence contains both terms, even though large groups of editors believe one or the other term is preferable. -- Avi (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
That's because of a bold edit by JohnC, which is unrelated to Lisa's complaint above. Lisa is saying we should add additional wording to the lead after "is a creation myth", which explains what "creation myth" means. I'm asking her to wait until consensus is settled before inserting that wording. You may revert John's other edit if you find it disagreeable. — Jess· Δ♥02:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
You are correct, I was referring to John's edit. Thank you for the correction. As to Lisa's edit, I will reserve judgment for now. -- Avi (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
It is a creation myth - it is not just called it. Lisa's proposed change is pure editorializing and POV obfuscation. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·04:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I am opposed to inserting it directly in to the lead - the reasons have been stated ad nauseam throughout the past two months - but I am neutral about putting it in a large-style note < refgroup="note" > style, which gives note 1 as its output. Only neutral because I doubt it will do anything to satisfy anyone. Most of one side wants it brazenly branded as a lie, and most of another side wants it brazenly branded as literal, 6,000-year-old-earth Truth (talking about the wording of the lead, not narrative v. myth). And I alone have the Truth, the Way, and the Light, a lone voicecrying out in the wilderness. St John Chrysostomview/my bias06:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Question - How is the term currently being used to confuse readers? It is not being used in an informal way, and is wikilinked to provide further clarification, which is the purpose of a wikilink. If a wikilink does not provide clarification and increase a reader's understanding of the topic, then what is a wikilink for? The wikilink gives a thorough explanation of what is meant by the term, explaining much more thoroughly than a note or in-text clarification would be able to. - SudoGhost06:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
We need some flexibility here - why are we saying creation 2 times in the the first sentence. Can we get a proper sentence over the current grade five version that is repetitive?Moxy (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Because the word is used once in the title, and once as part of a concise definition to explain what the article's subject is, per WP:LEDE. This isn't unique to this article. For example, any article about a high school will say "XYZ High School is a...high school located in..." The same goes for any article where a word in the title is also part of a concise definition. This isn't unique to unreviewed articles either, but includes good articles such as Kauhajoki school shooting or a featured article such as Major depressive disorder. Articles should not sacrifice conciseness out of a concern for repetition. - SudoGhost16:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
we should be able to use all the commonly used terms for this in the lede, the title should be first and then one or two alternative terms. There should be no POV tag on the top, as the article should represent the points of view. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem with the wording suggested in the RFC is that it attempted to qualify the term creation myth with a disclaimer. The correct term, linked to the correct article (creation myth) does not require such a disclaimer. Other articles about creation myths do not have, or require, such a disclaimer, and nor does this one.
Lisa's continued attacks on my motives are irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I hate to have to agree with Jeffro on this one. I agree with Jeffro on this one. (Struck comment as I intended no offense, see message on my talk page.) The Wikilink is enough, and if we do a note 1 style explanation, it's not going to satisfy anyone. Those who don't like it will still drive-by edit it to story/account/unvarnished truth/whatever. St John Chrysostomview/my bias18:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Came to this argument from the RfC, spent a couple hours going over previous debate. Having a good deal of experience with studies of mythology (esp. contemporary mythology that engages with "true" events and phenomena, ala Roland Barthes' work), I find myself cringing at the idea of perpetuating the informal and ignorant view of mythology as "a fictional story" or whatever. I wholly support using the term "myth" in title and lede without disclaimer or qualification. Ignorance is not really a good excuse for taking offense, and pandering to ignorance by burying the academic definition of "myth" out of fears that those who are ignorant of the words' meaning (or, alternately, those who cannot handle metaphor in general) might take offense is really, really counterproductive. Beyond that, the use of "narrative" would be convoluted and less accurate. Maybe "narrative" could be correct, but certainly not as correct as "myth". I'll let others do the WP rules lawyering, though. "Creation in Genesis" would be just as acceptable to me for a title. That is, I'd be happy to see us sidestep the issue - it's far better than using inaccurate or vague language where a more correct term is available. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Adding POV-title template
Please refrain from doing so; discuss it at the ongoing discussion on the administrator's noticeboard, but there seemed to be broad consensus that neither narrative nor myth were POV. POV would be "Creation", "Beginning of the Universe", "Creation as told by God", etc.; don't start a dispute that doesn't even exist because one is unsatisfied with the way the RfM turned out. Thank you. St John Chrysostomview/my bias02:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
If myth is the term used by the majority of independent sources and if narrative is the term used mostly by writers with a Christian POV then the tag is fully relevant. That RM may be closed and may not reopen but this issue is far from dead. I will revert your removal, please don't remove it until the issue is settled one way or another. NoformationTalk02:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
How exactly does "narrative" imply any POV? Isn't it a "reliable sources" problem (since you state, that it is a problem with the sources that contain "narrative") if you think the (Judaeo-Christian) exegetical sources used are inappropriate for an article on exegesis? As far as I understand it, the template is for such articles as "George Bush (Liar)", "Richard 'Tricky Dick' Nixon", "Pious fiction (listing of all religions' scriptures)", "Holy Bible" (instead of "Christian Bible"), "Jesus Christ" (instead of "Jesus of Nazareth"), etc. - if not, why wasn't this tag added long ago? Most (many?) of the "move" !voters thought that neither term was POV (there was an entire sub-thread about "more NPOV"), so adding this strikes me as battleground (as it was added directly and only in response to a "lost battle"), tendentious, etc. I ask that you provide the rationale for adding it: whoever uses a certain name doesn't change the inherent neutrality or non-neutrality of it, as was brought up in the discussions of "myth" being an academic sense (that it didn't become "loaded" because some people "misused" it). In that case, "myth" being used by militantly anti-religious authors (such as Dawkins) would disqualify it too, yes, as "anti-religious" is a POV as surely as any other, and I know of no "anti-religious academic consensus". St John Chrysostomview/my bias02:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
According to the close we have no concensus. When we have concensus for something there will no longer be a dispute. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
@John I didn't add the tag before because I didn't know that it existed, else I would have. Secondly, it appears that most of the editors on this page don't seem to understand what NPOV means and think it means something like "fair," "balanced," "non offensive," etc but this is not the case. NPOV means that we as editors take a neutral stance towards what reliable sources say. If sources say X and we say Y then it doesn't matter what Y is, it's a POV problem. While we should use Christian sources on this article we should not do so when they contradict the independent, academic sources, which is what "narrative" does. This page is clearly biased from a Christian POV and it's not right. We're Wikipedia, not conservapedia. NoformationTalk03:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
This page appears to be biased towards a secular/very theologically liberal (i.e. secular) point of view to me: however, I make no attempt to change the focus, as the consensus seems to be that it is acceptable. Read literally, NPOV and WEIGHT would demand sections adding the traditional Christian and Jewish views, as well as the current conservative view; a literal reading of RNPOV says that (and this is stated verbatim in RNPOV, last paragraph) in the lead, we should have, for example, "Jews and Christians have traditionally held that Moses wrote the book of Genesis during the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. However, many academics of modern historical-criticism and philology, etc. have concluded that the Book of Genesis likely borrows from Mesopotamian creation myths, such as the Enuma Elis. Some believers, especially of mainstream Protestantism and liberal Roman Catholics, have accepted these conclusions, while the rapidly-growing ranks of Evangelicals, conservative Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and conservative Roman Catholics by and large have not, and have proposed alternate theories, such as those first used by the Church Fathers ~1800 years ago."
Christian and Jewish sources most definitely can be used, and can be independent and academic, as many here - Brueggemann, Wenham, Sarna - are. Otherwise would be tantamount to saying that a Christian can not do science! (or alternately) It can not be asserted that only atheists are independent sources for this article without at the same time asserting that only religious people are independent sources for articles dealing with atheism (as by the same criteria atheists are not independent sources when dealing with their own lack of beliefs). As I have asserted repeatedly, most (if not absolutely all) of the reliable sources for questions of exegesis of the Old Testament are going to be from Christian and Jewish exegetes. NPOV and WEIGHT together are about "balance" and "fairness", but not about "non-offensiveness" (that's NOTCENSORED). "Narrative" does not contradict "myth" in any way: it is not untoward to say that "narrative" is a piece of literature and "myth" is what is described in that literature, in this case. The Genesis creation narrative are the words of the Gen 1-2. The Genesis creation myth is the story/timeless truth/whatever that is contained within the words of the document (narrative) itself. As I stated above, the use of a certain neutral term by certain individuals was established in the RfM as having absolutely no bearing on whether the term itself is neutral (that's like saying that if Stalin used the word "communism", that is no longer an acceptable term to use), but only the dictionary definitions of the words (as I said, otherwise the use of "myth" by Dawkins et al. to categorically state "fairy tale falsehood" would disqualify it). "NPOV" is policy: "SPOV" (Scientific Point of View) is failed policy (and "Secular Point of View" or "Atheist Point of View" or "Theist Point of View" are all parts of NPOV and WEIGHT) which seems to be what you're trying to implement here, or how you are reading NPOV. It seems you have (or view the article as having) a RS and UCN problem (and there seems to be legitimate room for debate on what is the UCN in this case, as well as what are the most reliable sources), not a POV one. St John Chrysostomview/my bias03:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Christian sources should not be avoided, and are not non-independent just for that reason. However, that does not mean that all Christian sources should be used, either. Being a Christian source has nothing to do with it, having a biased source does. When there are sources that use "Babylonian creation myth" and then within the same sentence use "Genesis creation account/narrative/truth", they are applying a different standard to their own religious views, and these sources are biased, incapable of describing the subject objectively and as such cannot and should not be given the same weight as sources that apply terms equally. - SudoGhost16:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with JohnChrysostom as the Christian and current Jewish writings are actually independent of the subject matter. The only non independent writings here is the Bible itself. They are independent because they did not write the book of Genesis and do not appear in it. Just because they are treating it seriously does not give a conflict of interest. In any case the POV-title tag should not appear on the top of the article, as narrative is a neutral term. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Narrative constitutes POV if all other creation myths are referred to as myths and not narratives, and the reason for not calling it a 'myth' is because a bunch of people just don't like it. (Articles that are named for the title of a story are out of scope. As previously stated, if there is a specific title for the Genesis creation myth, then that would be an entirely suitable name for the article without an additional descriptor.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. If the terms are each neutral, then their use is neutral. Similar to WP:OTHERSTUFF, the fact that we use one term in one place does not allow us to say that must use that term in all other places if both terms are acceptable. -- Avi (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
But they are not "each neutral", because narrative is used to avoid using the correct academic term, and the reason for doing so is religious bias.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I dont see why your so upset - the term narrative is much more degrading then myth. A "narrative" is simply telling a story and in my opinion is much more degrading them myth. At least myth indicates some sort of Academic process behind it. I personal believe that "myth" is better but if most what to simply call it a story that fine I guess
Agree - I see the problem here - we have a whole bunch of so called experts taking guesses. I find it odd that 2 words that mean the same thing can not be neutral. I see that this conversation is full of policy misinterpretations and lack of academic understanding of the topic at hand. Wish you guys all the best...back to genetic articles for me.Moxy (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Just because the word narrative is used in the creation myth article doesn't make them synonymous, in the same way that Literature does not mean "art", even though it's used in the definition. Creation myth means something independent of narrative; its additional context and meaning are why it's used prominently by independent reliable sources. Would it make sense to move Children's literature to Children's art (without changing scope) just because some people thought the word literature was offensive and meant the stories might not be true? If our sources say literature often, then we should follow the sources, and avoiding them just on the basis of possible offense creates a neutrality concern. Disregarding NPOV is a problem for neutrality, not because either word itself is more neutral, but because we're sidestepping policy to cater to religious sensibilities. That's a problem. — Jess· Δ♥19:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe your analogy is flawed. The start of the Literature article is "Literature (from Latin litterae (plural); letter) is the art of written work..." Art is immediately qualified as being of the written form, so no reasonable person would confuse the general "art" for the specific "literature". Wikipedia's own creation myth article, however, starts "A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it." The word "narrative" is not qualified, perhaps outside of being called "symbolic". But that itself is further qualified later in the creation myth article where it says "In the society in which it is told, a creation myth is usually regarded as conveying profound truths, metaphorically, symbolically and sometimes even in a historical or literal sense." in which case, it may not be symbolic but literal. There are many schools of thought that believe the story of Genesis to be literal, and not merely symbolic, which is why "narrative", even according to our own articles, is as neutral as myth, if not more so. The words "narrative" and "myth" are interchangeable in our own system in a way that "art" and "literature" certainly are not. -- Avi (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
A creation myth is not "a symbolic narrative.", it is "a symbolic narrative of how the world began". It is qualified in exactly the same way as "literature is the art of written work". Narrative does not mean creation myth. — Jess· Δ♥19:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
It is already addressed by the word "creation" the same way that the word "myth" alone would be inappropriate (too general) without the qualifier "creation". -- Avi (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
What? A phrase is not defined by itself. "A creation myth is a symbolic narrative" is incomplete. It is not just a symbolic narrative, and inclusion of "creation" in the phrase we're defining doesn't change that. It's a symbolic narrative of something specific, in exactly the same way that Literature is art of something specific. "Narrative" does not mean "Creation Myth", just as "Art" does not mean "Literature". They are not interchangeable. — Jess· Δ♥19:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
But "Myth" is incomplete too, it is "creation myth" that is the term you wish to use, which is exactly the same issue as the relationship between "narrative" and "creation narrative". There is nothing inherent in "creation myth" that is not inherent in "creation narrative", and "myth" without "creation" suffers from the same issue as "narrative" without "creation". I still fail to see where the term "creation myth" is any different in terms of denotation than "creation narrative" and any benefit it has over the term "creation narrative" where the latter term benefits from the lack of negative connotations. -- Avi (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
"Myth" is also not interchangeable with "Narrative". Myth denotes something very different, namely its ties to traditional and cultural themes. "Creation narrative" is not a term common in academia. AFAICT, its use is exclusive to Christian apologetics to avoid an unfavorable label. At best, it's a synonym with less prominence in the literature. At worst, its meaning is assumed from mashing two similar words together, which loses context on the historical, traditional and cultural significance of the work. Either way, it's a neutrality concern because we're making an editorial decision to use language distinct from our sources in violation of NPOV. We're using a less technical, less common, and potentially less meaningful phrase in service of a religious POV. I don't see how that's compatible with an academic encyclopedia. I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm trying to answer your question, "why is this a neutrality concern". That's why. — Jess· Δ♥21:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree completely with Jess here. There is, in fact, meaning in "myth" that is not present in "narrative". Avramam says: 'myth' without 'creation' suffers from the same issue as 'narrative' without 'creation'"; this is poor logic, but is also false on its face. A narrative can refer to any sequential recounting; "myth" implies - at least - that there is some cultural or historical significance to both the phenomena or events described in the narrative, and to their sequencing. Thus, myth really is a more specific term on its own, and "narrative" as some well-intentioned Wikipedians are trying to use it here is unnecessarily vague, and possibly misleading. Are there any arguments against using "myth" here that are not based on one specific type of religious bias? I've been reading talk pages here for hours, and have yet to find any. [edit to add:] Furthermore (in an academic sense) myths need not be narrative; "myth" can also describe a grouping of phenomena and events without necessarily implying a linear, teleological sequence of retelling... So maybe some wonky construction like "mythological narrative" in the lede could satisfy some fols... but I doubt it. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
"Myth" in the news
This might interest people involved in the interminable debate over the word "myth". This is what people hear when they see the word myth. To use the word and not clarify it on the spot is a violation of WP:NPOV. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 11:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Not sure we have a full understanding of what the meaning of this words are. I take it in the USA this is not talked about in school in a formal manner? Do they still teach creationism in the USA? From the Grade five text book we use in Ontario Canada.
Mody dick is a "narrative" about a big fish and an old man
Actually narrative includes both fiction and non-fiction. The issue is that "creation myth" is the word used by scholars and gives more information on the nature of it (i.e in essence, a set of cultural beliefs or similar, see comment by DigitalHoodoo in the section above)). IRWolfie- (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree - So why is this so hard for others to understand. As i asked before is this "narrative" stuff still in schools in the USA? Moxy (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Infoboxes
This article does deal with a topic that is foundational to creationists, but more than all else, it deals with an important topic of Biblical exegesis. Is there any way to add one of the Bible infoboxes or templates or whatever it's called in the lead? Such as the one at Biblical canon? St John Chrysostomview/my bias12:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Why not say that academics regard this narrative as blah blah blah while religious people regard it as yadda yadda yadda?
We can then go on to explain why academics use words like "myth" and Mythology; how they study ideas about the supernatural in the context of folklore and psychology.
We can also indicate the past and present degree of belief in the supernatural perspective on Creation.
Why academics use terms like myth is out of this article's scope. That's why we have articles like mythology and creation myth. This article, and other specific creation myth articles, do not need disclaimers for these terms.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I am adding a section(s) (in the normal definition of the term, not the wiki definition of a bold heading set off with four equals signs) - which I fully believe will be emended, amended, revised, and reverted freely as part of WP:BRD - in my rewrite about, "traditionally Jews/Christians have believed X...but recent discoveries/advances suggest/demonstrate Y....and group of believers Z accepts this, while group of believers A does not", to grossly oversimplify (it will be referenced... even most of the present references mention in passing "traditional" beliefs) in accordance with the last paragraph of RNPOV. However, I am not qualifying any terms, as ample consensus has been found for using the words in, and only in, the technical sense. Polls about the prevalence of belief in some form of creation (which I imagine is staggeringly high in America, probably over a supermajority: note, that I did not say nor mean literal seven-day 6,000 years ago) is not really on topic, IMO, but more fit for articles on creationism, or as a section of WEIGHT/popular opinion/prevalent beliefs in articles on Universe/whatever/sociology/psychology/philosophy of religion. St John Chrysostomview/my bias14:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Ed has a couple good points here - we should absolutely note that people consider the creation myth to be a literal history within the lede; that many, many people in consider it to be a "true" myth is a critical distinction of the Genesis myth that separates it from - say - the story of Auðumbla licking an ice block ;) However, I'd stay away from either long disclaimers or extra sections (per Jeffro's argument). Unless we butcher our language to meaninglessness, or succumb to self-censorship, it is - in fact - a myth, inside or outside academic circles. This is 'not a "religious people v. academics" issue - whether Genesis provides a true or accurate history of creation is entirely beside the point, it is still mythic. If people are confused or bothered by the term, they may easily click on a link to "creation myth" or "mythology' to learn why the story/history/narrative is mythic in character. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there a policy like Wikipedia:Article scope which forbids us to describe the context in which terminology is applied? I think the intent of NPOV is to prevent anyone from thinking that we are giving an editorial endorsement of POV. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
But they are discussed in reliable sources - indeed, many of the same sources already used (Wenham and Brueggemann for two; if I considered the decision to let Ellen G White stand as a reliable source legitimate, that would open up a huge can of worms: but I don't, so I won't use anything that invalid). I am not adding uncited original research (I did that once as an IP editor and got reamed), and expect any uncited information, SYNTH, or OR to be promptly removed and for myself to be slapped with a trout if so. Mann_jess has said he will, if and when he has time, read/edit incremental portions of the rewrite as I post them in userspace; if he is unable to, I will work with someone else of civility and opposing viewpoint to make sure I don't get too far off the mark or carried away. And, even when I am done, it's still a work in progress - I don't WP:OWN the article, but I do want to improve some of the lack of information and the absolutely ghastly prose of the article as-is. St John Chrysostomview/my bias17:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
On another note - if some editors want to use the word "narrative" as a synonym for any "story" or "account" - why not just use "story" or "account"? Even if we banish the term "myth" from the debate, "narrative" is still awkward and far from the best term, and the only reason to use it as the preferred term seems to be loading the article for POV. Finally, it's a key point that we can assume that secular scholarly sources are reliable, but we certainly cannot write this article under the assumption that the genesis story is true or likely to be true. Do we have any neutral RSs that support a literal biblical creation? Do we have a general scholarly consensus that is is, or is likely to be, true? No? Then we must assume its truth is dubious for the purposes of WP (not that is it untrue, of course; just that it is an unverifiable account). Now, if the scholarly consensus is that it is likely symbolic or untrue... DigitalHoodoo (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Are there any scholars nowadays who regard it a creation myth? If so, could we name a few? As in:
Most modern scholars regard this narrative as a creation myth. Typical is Sucha Learnedman, professor of Biblical Studies at Vunderkind University, who writes: "The Genesis account is one of mankind's most beloved creation myths because it provides the hope of a life of unlimited blessing despite the tragic history that has blotted mankind since the fall."
Find a quote like this, but a real one, okay?
I don't think this will be difficult, I'll get back to you in coming hours. In the future, please take care to sign your posts clearly; there's quite a few people in the discussion and we can't simply guess who is who based on prose style (presently, I'm assuming this is Uncle Ed, and that it looks unsigned due to indentation). DigitalHoodoo (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
We might also at some point in the article indicate whether anyone still living takes the narrative literally rather than as a symbolic narrative. I wonder what Jewish or Christian believers think about this. Their viewpoint should be in the article, too. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Being literal has nothing to do with being a symbolic narrative, being symbolic has no bearing on whether it is symbolic or not, see below. - SudoGhost02:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed with SudoGhost here; yes, Ed, of course it is worthwhile to mention inside the article that many people believe this myth (read: symbolic narrative, if you prefer) describes a literal history. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Symbolic
Use of the word symbolic was contested, diff: [6]. Most mainstream christian groups refer to the Genesis creation myth as being symbolic; they do not believe it literally; best example is the Catholic Church: plenty of sources in this article: Allegorical interpretations of Genesis. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
−
I added "symbolic", and fully consent to it being removed (Jeffro did) for NPOV as well as stylistic reasons. Being a Catholic, Catholics are free to believe it in a literal sense or in a symbolic sense: the Church has taught no dogma on the issue, although certain commissions/Popes/etc. have expressed an opinion, not every statement of a Pope or commission defines an article of faith. I'm sure reference can be found for this, but it may be like proving a negative: Catholics do not have to believe in symbolically. The only dogmatic pronouncement that has been made is that "God generates the soul/life spontaneously for every life at the moment of conception", as a point which no further can be gone: further, Catholics range along the spectrum from young-earth to theistic evolution (however, the 1994 authorititative Catechism does teach that the fall and first parents are literally real - indicative of the range of beliefs amongst Catholics). Beyond that, there are many "mainstream" Christian groups (Evangelicals) who take it in a literal sense, which isn't hard to see in all of the exgetical commentaries used by such groups, or even a cursory look at the first pages of a study Bible. The so-called "mainstream" Christan groups (mainline/liberal Protestants) are shrinking rapidly, but, for some reason, they're still called "mainstream" when outnumbered by Evangelicals... I used to have a graph compiled out of ARIS statistics that showed the movement between four denominations (mainstream, evangelical, Catholic, traditionally black) and non-religious... I'll have to see if I can find it. One can still read the ARIS statistics, but it takes long and isn't as striking or as fun as a visual representation. St John Chrysostomview/my bias14:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not entirely convinced that there are not significant minorities that consider the account to be literal (or semi-literal, such as day-age creationists), or that it is essential to include symbolic in the opening sentence. However, the rationale provided by Avraham is flawed, because it makes the false claim that those who consider the account to be symbolic are mutually exclusive of the stated religious groups, which is overwhelmingly not the case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The wikilink to creation myth suffices as the very first sentence of that article contains the definition. If the wikilink is good enough that we do not have to qualify the definition as "in the academic sense" it is good enough to leave out the focus on "symbolic," especially as the article does state "A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it....In the society in which it is told, a creation myth is usually regarded as conveying profound truths, metaphorically, symbolically and sometimes even in a historical or literal sense." If we are going to say symbolic, it must be qualified, especially since, in terms of both volume of people and volume of written material, there are likely as many, if not more, who believe it literal than symbolic. IRWolfie, I understand you are a self-professed agnostic/atheist (your userboxes) so you come from a particular viewpoint, but we need to reflect the viewpoints of what is out in the world, which includes centuries, if not millenia, of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim biblical scholarship and not artificially promote the atheistic academic subset; at least in my opinion and, of course, I have a personal point of view as well that I need to suppress when trying to make the article as wiki-neutral as possible. -- Avi (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed that not all, but a sizeable enough contingent to prevent wikipedia from taking a position (as opposed to flat earth, for example). Also, to re-emphasize, the wikilink addresses all of these points, and since we don't want to add all qualifications (academic, symbolic, literal), the link to creation myth is more than enough, as it addresses all of the sophisticated subtleties captured within the statement. -- Avi (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Some interpret it literally, some symbolically, in differing amounts over the years. I added "symbolic" (and, again, I do not object to its removal) as I do not believe it is mutually exclusive with "literal" (as events could have happened, and still have a symbolic significance, especially, for a Theist, with "God at the helm"; events can also be "finessed" to bring out greater symbolism; ancient Greco-Roman histories are full of this), and also to avoid my own POV, which is presented in userboxes on my userpage (semi-literal, tending towards literal). However, in avoiding my own POV, I inadvertently added something that could easily be interpreted as another POV (just not my own). I do applaud everyone, though, who makes their own POV clear with userboxes or on their userpage, as it makes what to look for, consciously or subconsciously, in their edits, more apparent. (The reason I added my own, for the most part, to broadcast my POV to make sure it's easily checked that I don't fall in to it - that, and some snark, about Jesus reading the King James Version.) I endorse Avraham's remarks about the sizable contingent - no one exegetical position has even close to a plurality, let alone a monopoly, amongst Christians nor Jews - as is seen from checking the glut of creationist sources and conservative commentaries. St John Chrysostomview/my bias14:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
John, we are agreed that acknowledging personal point of view is helpful, and remembering that we all have points of view. Although I use categories instead of user boxes 8-) -- Avi (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Symbolic and literal interpretations are incompatible. What the catholic church teaches is that it is symbolic of an actual event, i.e a form of metaphor for the event. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but that is a pure fabrication. The theologians of the catholic church teach that it is symbolic and not literal and I'd wager that the eastern orthodox teach the same. They represent the largest contingent of Christianity. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
John is correct, describing it as symbolic does not preclude the literal meaning in the text, it can be both symbolic and literal, they are not mutually exclusive terms in the context of a creation myth. As an example: "Anthropologists generally agree that myth is a symbolic text . . . which has a double meaning. The first one is a linguistic one on the surface where the story is interpreted in its literal sense . . . in this way religious myths are read by the believers. However, there also exists a second hidden meaning hidden in symbols . . . Symbolic narratives which constitutes myth expresses cultural issues through the double meaning of the text." - SudoGhost14:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
...okay? I'm not understanding what that has to do with my comment. It doesn't change the fact that it is a symbolic narrative, and being symbolic does not change the fact that it can also be taken literally. I made no comment as to who might read it as literal. - SudoGhost14:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The Eastern Orthodox have no position (but most are a weird kind of literal-symbolic following Origen, in my experience: they actually have no central authority capable of issuing one), nor do the Catholics. What a specific theologian or group of theologians teaches is not the teaching of the Church: only a dogmatic definition of the Pope, an ecumenical council, or the constant teaching of the ordinary magisterium can make a position an article of faith. This is now a matter of Catholic faith and theology, to assert that the Catholic Church believes - that is, has defined - the Genesis story as non-literal, which is a patent falsehood. Plenty of Catholics believe it to be literal: the Catechism teaches that it really happened, and is described using "figurative language". The Catholic Church has no official teaching on the matter. See above the three, and only three conditions by which any view held by some Catholics - or even all Catholics - can become a teaching of the Church. (Five edit conflicts in a row. Damn.) St John Chrysostomview/my bias14:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Figurative and Literal are not compatible. The word figurative means Departing from a literal use of words; metaphorical.. That is by definition not literal. That is precisely what I said. Catholic church guidance is to teach it as metaphorical (for this primeval event) and not literal. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Figurative means symbolic, as you made the connection, and it has been established that they are not mutually exclusive. However: Paragraph 390: "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.". I don't see how that can be twisted in to other than "it really happened". What is meant by "figurative" is that it may not have been an actual bite from an actual fruit that was the sin, but that original sin traces back to an event committed by our first parents is affirmed. (However, the Catechism is only marginally more authoritative than a group of theologians: it is approved for the time being, but can be modified, and is not infallible, unlike Pope/council ratified by Pope/constant teaching of Magisterium.) Without trying to invoke credentials, I am a Latin-rite seminarian, and both interpretations are taught side-by-side (although seven-day 6,000-year-old creationism isn't - although Catholics are allowed to believe it too. Contrary to popular opinion, the Church is incredibly non-dogmatic about most things, except for a few that are always in the spotlight), and if I thought for one minute that Catholicism demanded that Genesis be understood as a purely symbolic story, I'd probably jump ship to the nearest LCMS seminary. (Edit: not really. I'm not that disloyal to the Church, but speak for hyperbole's sake.) St John Chrysostomview/my bias15:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: I do not contest that the symbolic interpretation is overwhelmingly common amongst Catholic theologians and exegetes (see Berit Olam), only that it is a teaching of the Church. What a Catholic or group of Catholics teaches or believes on anything other than dogmata is not the same as what the Catholic Church teaches. That's like saying individual Catholics who are a part of Catholics For Choice reflect the views of the Catholic Church, (the opposition to abortion actually isn't a dogma, but is very close to it, as it is seen as deriving from teleology/the natural law), or Hans Kung's opinions on Papal infallibility make the Pope fallible, as Hans Kung is still a priest in good standing - not excommunicated - merely not allowed to teach Catholic theology. St John Chrysostomview/my bias15:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems to be conceded in the above discussion that many Eastern Orthodox do accept the Genesis narrative in their view of history (not to mention Oriental Orthodox) yet surely treating the Orthodox as part of a "minority fringe" would have to reflect a P.O.V. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Most West Russians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Ukrainians etc. do in fact learn English as a second language, however -- either in school or by [believe it or not] watching television in English. Wekn reven15:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I did not concede the point. It's taken, by the catholic church that there was a primeval event and that the genesis creation myth is an allegorical (aka symbolic) description of that event. This is a far cry away from literalism. I would wager most large Christian groups have a fairly similar interpretation to that of the catholic church. IRWolfie- (talk)
It is not a vote of numbers, but "significant minorities". (Actually, there was an actual primeval event, but the language - fruit, tree, God walking in Eden - is figurative, not that the event is; it talks of "first parents", and Adam and Eve are inextricably linked to creationism, and exclude theistic evolution). You are not an authority on what the Catholic Church teaches. You can prove nothing by assertion, as you are attempting to. You repeatedly assert, "this is what the Catholic Church believes". The Catechism believes differently, and I have provided a source: you have not, other than assertion. Find a source that tells me it's a dogmatic definition of what Catholics must believe, and not just a common opinion among individual Catholic theologians, and I'll eat crow and convert to Deism. The second-largest group of Christians in America are evangelicals, and I've never seen a symbolic-hermeneutic evangelical (although they may exist). St John Chrysostomview/my bias15:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
For what it is worth, Orthodox, and I believe Conservative, Jews believe in literal reading of Genesis, but that is a much smaller group than Christians. -- Avi (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Yeah, right, John. English is spoken all over the world. But I guess 'Systemic Bias' means their viewpoint is not significant to this topic because English is not always their mother tongue, thus their faith and doctrines can be easily dismissed as "fringe". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I agree, but I was trying to think of the first exception that IRWolfie would come up with.
I've removed symbolic and put my reason in the summary - it seems that IRWolfie is trying to make this a vote of numbers of teachings of denominations (as if automatically assuming that even if a billion Catholics take it one way - which, categorically, they do not - reflects on the other 1.2 billion Christians in the world) - literal is a significant minority viewpoint, and unqualified "narrative" does not exclude literal, symbolic, nor non-literal, and is thus not POV. However, as has been established, "symbolic" does not exclude literal either, so, if it is reverted, I will not war over it. (How odd that I'm taking up the defense of an edit originally made by Jeffro! :-). I do believe pipelinked with my current revision is the most neutral, but both are acceptable. (My main exception to all of this is that IRWolfie seems to be trying to tell me what my Church teaches/what I am required to believe: not with the wording of the article: sorry for going off-topic.) St John Chrysostomview/my bias15:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
That a literal interpretation is a significant minority viewpoint has not been shown. That the catholic church takes it to be allegorical (it's irrelevant if it was stated dogmatically if it was they teach) was demonstrated by the catechism. There are 1.2 Billion Catholics. From the other 1 billion most denominations do not take the genesis creation myth literally but also as an allegory. By including the literalist fringe viewpoint you are promoting a particular POV. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
You twisting words to prove by assertion has proved nothing. You are not the Pope and are not an ecumenical council. In any case, it is not a vote of numbers of the teachings of different denominations. That Genesis is literal, look up von Rad, Douglas K. Stuart in the NAC, Wenham in the WBC (he's in the both symbolic and real camp, just as the Catholic Church is: the Catholic Church teaches that it is a real, literal, actual, historical event described using figurative language: not that the event - the actual, literal, real, historical event - is figurative, but that it is not described in scientific terms complete with Einstein's field equations), and I believe the NICOT as well. It is a dominant viewpoint amongst evangelicals. St John Chrysostomview/my bias15:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
You are precisely arguing my own point. The church teaches that the real event is not described literally (i.e the events occurred exactly as written with no metaphors) but it is a metaphorically description of the actual "literal" real event. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
One of us is expressing himself very, very poorly, or interpreting equally poorly, as what I have understood you to have asserted the Church teaches and/or believes (without a single reference), the Church does not teach and/or believe. It's obvious that interpreting the Catechism is as fraught with exegetical difficulties as sola scriptura Protestants interpreting the Bible, if we can in good faith come away with polar-opposite, diametrically-opposed conclusions and interpretations. St John Chrysostomview/my bias16:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
When I say the church teaches it I don't mean that it defines it dogmatically. I mean that if you attend a catholic church run school (that's what I regard as a place where the church teaches) they will teach you that it is allegory. When I say "the church" I mean the people that make up the catholic church; the laity, the priests etc of the catholic church. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment - What does Orthodox Christianity have to do with "symbolic" being in the article? A creation myth is a symbolic narrative, not just a narrative, who believes it to be literal or not doesn't change this. It is not "either symbolic or literal, chose one". Symbolic is not a POV wording, it's one reliable sources use to describe both "creation myth" in general, and Genesis itself.[7][8][9][10] - SudoGhost15:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for an intelligent comment. We're getting carried away in IRWolfie trying to issue a dogmatic definition of Catholic belief. It has nothing to do with it. As I mentioned in my last comment, and first put forth, symbolic and literal are not mutually exclusive as some are trying to assert, and I will not revert a reversion of my edit. Note, that I do not (and will never, until a dogmatic definition is issued one way or the other) concede the point on what some claim the Catholic Church teaches (as opposed to what individual Catholics are free to believe), but I have other stuff to be doing at the moment, but my silence is not a concession to proof by assertion. St John Chrysostomview/my bias15:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The role of a neutral encyclopedia must NOT be, like that of the Council of Nicea, to arbiter by consensus whose religious doctrines are defined as 'fringe' (= heresy) and whose positions get the official wiki-seal of approval. That's why strict neutrality describing all the viewpoints must be our utmost concern. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree, but any belief of a literal interpretation (fringe or not) does not change the "symbolic" qualifier, as expressed by reliable sources. = SudoGhost16:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia treats fringe viewpoint with less due weight than mainstream views WP:FRINGE, weight being decided through reliable sources. However, if an article is written about a well-known topic, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's another one with imprimatur. They're endless. Please read them, or even browse that site - it appears all of the articles have imprimatur. Anything with imprimatur is "as official" as anything else. You have a very poor grasp of Catholic theology and teaching and what makes what what. Again, what a specific theologian or group or predominance of theologians teaches is not the teaching of the Church. Unlike in Protestantism, where individual theologians can hold infinite sway at any time, only what is defined as a teaching of the Church is a teaching of the Church. If two contradictory teachings both have imprimatur, both are acceptable, and neither can be an official teaching, as the Church can not teach contradiction. The Catholic Church allows for differences of opinion on creation. You hold one opinion, and are not even a member of the Church: however, it is not the only opinion, nor official teaching, and you have yet to provide a single source, but you keep attempting proof by assertion. Are you trying to goad me in to rule-breaking behavior? St John Chrysostomview/my bias16:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you stop making up arguments I never made. I never said it was taught as doctrine. It is generally accepted by catholics that it is allegory. That the church allows for different viewpoints is irrelevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I can appreciate the argument that a lot of people consider the Genesis story to be symbolic. But quite a lot of people think it is plain nonsense. Maybe we could put that word in the lead instead? --FormerIP (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
It is not irrelevant, because the Church doesn't teach it. That some theologians do is no different than that some theologians (Hans Kung) teaching the Pope is fallible. It is not generally accepted by most Catholics to be symbolic, but neither of us can demonstrate such without polling a representative sample of Catholics (and first determining who is a Catholic) to find their opinions. FormerIP is right, that the entire debate is irrelevant, but it is a damn good debate. St John Chrysostomview/my bias16:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The opinion of the laity is irrelevant when we're discussing Catholic dogma. The official position of the Church is that the creation myth is metaphorical. The Vatican supports evolution, coupled with a variety of Intelligent Design (that differs significantly from the Michael behe / American Evangelical type of ID). My source: er... 12 years of Catholic school; a lot of conversations with clergy. I can dig out my Catechism if it is really necessary. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx The US believers also tend to be more literal than Europeans. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
There we have our answer. It's a "49% symbolic, 30% true and 21% nonsense narrative, according to Americans". --FormerIP (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we should be relying only on what reliable sources call it. If reliable sources say it is symbolic then that is what we should say. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
And other reliable sources say it is literal (I can probably find any number of biblical scholars over the past 2000 years who believe it literal). Since both are supported by reliable sources, and since the wikilink links to the definition which discusses this in more detail, we should use the link and let the interested reader follow up. Otherwise, we should start putting in the "academic" qualifier and other qualifiers as well, and next thing you know, we'll be piping in the entire lead of creation myth which is overkill. Let wikilinks do their job. -- Avi (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, reliable sources use symbolic narrative to describe Genesis, and what we should do is reflect reliable sources. That reliable sources exist that say it is literal is not an argument against the use of "symbolic", because symbolic does not preclude a literal interpretation, which has been shown through a reliable source above. There are a great many reliable sources that describe Genesis as a "symbolic narrative", I'm not aware of any that say Genesis is not one. - SudoGhost17:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. The apartment next to mine was on fire. I agree with Sudo for the purposes of wording the article - symbolical does not preclude literal, which I first pointed out, we have a reliable source stating as much, and many scholars as far back as Augustine have considered it symbolical (and he was a young-earth creationist), in the sense of the four senses of Scripture. I don't think that "symbolical" is needed (if you look, I was the first to add symbolical and the last to remove it... screw you, Plato, for convincing me to go where the arguments leadeth), but if it satisfies more editors/consensus, I find it to be acceptable. There are no scholars that I can think of, in any time of history, who would have called it literal only, while excluding any deeper symbolical meaning as well - to do such would be to read Scripture in an incredibly superficial way. I do not concede that the Catholic Church teaches a purely symbolic/purely non-literal/fictional/allegorical/whatever position, only that it teaches no position, and that individual theologians teach that there is a deeper symbolical meaning to the true (possibly phenomenologically-described) account of Genesis (see "the four sense of Scripture" - Wiki doesn't have an article on it, I should write one). However, as has been pointed out, the relevance of the Catholic Church's teaching to this debate is zero (until a section of "Genesis and Theology" about "Catholic Church and Genesis" is added). I also thank FormerIP IRWolfie for the posting of the poll, which, while useless for this article (or determining what Catholics believe or the Church teaches), is interesting, especially since I asserted in an earlier discussion, tangentially, that "probably more than a supermajority of Americans believe in some form of creation" or something like that. Who doesn't like being right? St John Chrysostomview/my bias17:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
(unindent) For conservative Christians - which probably includes Fundamentalists - the creation stories are supremely important. They feel that if the stories are regarded as myth then their foundational Christian beliefs would be in danger of "collapsing like a row of dominoes". [11] So for the sake of NPOV and to avoid WP:UNDUE weight on the viewpoint that most scholars take, I think we need to add a section in the body of the article on how Christians (and others?) have been interpreting this narrative. The secular view that it is symbolic is one POV. Another POV is that of theologians and religious leaders. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Read my discussion with Mann_jess below: I think that's as far as this (soon to be series of) article(s) will go, but you may share a similar view and merely have expressed your view a bit strongly here. St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ21:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Piping creation myth
Woah... a lot of changes popped in since I signed off yesterday. I don't know how I feel about piping creation myth if we're not using "Genesis creation myth" as the title. I think the term "creation myth" is a really important one to use, here; it's descriptive in a way no other label is. If we're saying "The Genesis creation narrative (or SomeOtherName) is the symbolic narrative...", then we're omitting creation myth from the def, and saying it's just some other (less common) label for the standard description of narrative. I don't think that's in line with the sources. I understand the desire to eliminate redundancy, but we need to be careful we're not fundamentally redefining the subject just for flow.
If we do pipe creation myth to some other phrase, which I don't think we should, then at a minimum we need to use the definition of creation myth (or recognizable academic synonym, if there even is one). The definition of creation myth is a symbolic narrative of origins. By removing "symbolic" and making other changes to that def, we're no longer simply changing the wording for flow, but instead redefining the concept based on the synthesis of sources which say "Genesis is a creation myth" and "Genesis is literal". — Jess· Δ♥17:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Only on this article can four and a half words count as "Whoa, a lot of changes!" Is that what they mean by stagnation and the BRDDDDDDDDD cycle? :-D I decided to take the advice on that page and not let more than 24 hours pass without a BOLD change, else it becomes harder and harder to get the article changed, the stable version becomes sacrosanct, and ceases to be a work in progress. St John Chrysostomview/my bias18:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Heh. Well, I was also talking about the reverts and the multiple new sections on the talk page. Making changes isn't bad, I just wasn't expecting that much movement over a few hours :) — Jess· Δ♥18:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Jess said: "The definition of creation myth is a symbolic narrative of origins. By removing 'symbolic' and making other changes to that def, we're no longer simply changing the wording for flow, but instead redefining the concept based on the synthesis of sources which say 'Genesis is a creation myth' and 'Genesis is literal'". Apparently, this part of the argument got lost? Really, this is the core issue. Keeping "creation narrative" (without what I feel are awkward and unnecessary qualifiers) as the primary term over "creation myth" (even if both terms are doubleplus bold in the lede) for page title, body text, etc., is still wonky and inaccurate at best, POV at worst... DigitalHoodoo (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I made the changes, trying to work with BOLD edits towards something that more people would find acceptable: I figured placing both terms in the lead was a good place to start, and further, that having Genesis creation myth in bold in the lead was good enough. It read really, really poorly as "The Genesis creation narrative or Genesis creation myth is a creation myth..." (not to mention I did that one last night and was reverted): that's why I piped it. As I've stated above, I'm not against "symbolic" being in there: that was my original choice included in my edit, which was then changed by Jeffro (I'm not sure for what reasons, but, as I thought about it, both for style and neutrality, as a sizable minority does hold it to be literally true), I supported/did not revert the change, found myself supporting Jeffro's edit against my own for two hours, then deduced that symbolic and literal are not mutually exclusive (as some asserted), was then presented with reliable sources to that effect, came full circle, had a neighboring apartment burn down, and then had a massive off-topic debate on what constitutes a teaching of the Catholic Church, and now am typing this message. If "symbolic" has not been re-added, feel free to do so. St John Chrysostomview/my bias18:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Yea, I saw some of that. No worries (and sorry about the apartment). I appreciate the efforts to improve flow, and I agree that the previous redundancy was choppy. As I mentioned above, I'm just wary of redefining the topic on the basis of flow. Since we're using "narrative" as the primary title, I think explicitly saying creation myth is important for the definition, since it is recognizable, descriptive, and prevalent in the academic literature. I'd rather not revert it myself, especially since a lot of editors above have already looked it over and (tenatively?) approved, but I think we should have a discussion about it explicitly. I'll leave it open for others to comment. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥18:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
As John says, we have Genesis creation myth in bold in the first sentence, which is rather explicit :) -- Avi (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, just to clarify, the part that says "Genesis creation myth" isn't defining the subject. It is proposing an alternate, less common, label for the definition we're supplying later. For instance, if we said "A cat (or kitten) is a domestic animal...", we're not saying a cat is the same as a kitten. If we said "A cat (or small kitten)", we're not saying a cat is small. By piping creation myth, we're removing the term from the actual definition, and I think it's very important to have it in the definition. Is that clearer? — Jess· Δ♥18:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the analogy is more like "Canis canis, or, a dog...", in which case the problem seems to disappear to my eyes. When I read it, it does seem to be defining the subject, but as I've said ad nauseam, I am not opposed to adding symbolic and making it a verbatim copy of the definition on the creation myth page. St John Chrysostomview/my bias19:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
If you are not opposed to making the definition a verbatim copy of creation myth, then why are you opposed to calling it a creation myth??? This makes no sense. The one and only reason to stick hard with this "narrative" nonsense is to pander to a sentiment that goes: "unlike all other creation myths, this one is/might be a true and complete history". As is easily seen from the creation myth article, there is nothing that devalues literalist beliefs in the use or definition of "myth". I am really having a harder and harder time understanding how this is an issue at all... DigitalHoodoo (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, unlike Canis lupus familiaris v. dog, "creation narrative" is not the preferred term for "creation myth" outside of specific, biased disciplines. In both popular and scholarly discourse "creation myth" is, both the most familiar and the most correct term. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Wait a tick - isn't binomial nomenclaturism a specific, biased discipline? As everyone else, without exception, calls it a dog, or "man's best friend". No one hits baseballs to the Canis lupus familiaris. St John Chrysostomview/my bias20:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Right, and noone says "creation narrative" unless they're working in specific disciplines (or writing for specific audiences) that would oppose the use of the standard term - "creation myth" DigitalHoodoo (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
One reason of manyseverala few more I'll think of </sarcasm> is that the narrative is the literary structure (including technical exegetical questions, which this article mainly attempts to deal with) of the myth as actually present in the text of the first chapters of Genesis, and the myth is what is contained within that narrative, including the meanings of it, the interpretations, etc. (I think I was the only one to bring this one up), and that this is a subtle but present and important distinction made in the literature (as I have studied, studied, and studied Genesis, having personally read more than a third of the works in the bibliography). As "form is meaning", narrative is the form, or container, and has meaning of its own; myth is the contained, or the substance. I do not believe creation myth is biased (my original objections, long before the RfM, had to do with people misunderstanding the term, negative connotations, and attempting to end endless vandalism: I have been disabused of the first and the last of those notions, but still hold to the second, while understanding that it is mostly abrogated and rendered null by policy), as I have read much of CS Lewis, who puts an invariably positive spin on "Christian myth". Nor do I believe "narrative" is biased, and is more suited to the content of the article. If the article dealt mainly not with the text of the narrative, but instead with interpretation (as in "Allegorical interpretations of Genesis", the four senses of Scripture, etc., much as Lewis did when he spoke of myths) I would not be opposed to it being entitled "GCM" instead of "GCN": however, I doubt the article will ever be of that type, since it is almost invariably laden with WP:OR. St John Chrysostomview/my bias20:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Er... Yes. narrative is the literary structure of the Genesis creation myth. I think I understand you here - if we were working with an article titled "Creation in Christianity", then "myth" would be more appropriate; but, because this article is solely concerned with the literary structure of the creation myth it retells (rather than the substance of the myth itself), "narrative" must be more appropriate? If that is the case, I'd agree... Honestly, if I am coming to an article on "Genesis creation myth/narrative," I expect the content will describe the biblical account of creation / cosmogony, and not be exclusively devoted to the literary form of that myth... but maybe I'm wrong, and that is the intent of this article? DigitalHoodoo (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, I maintain there are no negative connotations to "myth". I'm not sure where that comes from, or why we should be respecting it; if some users will read the word and get hot and bothered because it does not expressly affirm the literal and unquestionable truth of seven day creation... well, that can't realyl be helped, can it? I'm not being sarcastic at all; I think that people taking genuine offense to the term "myth" must be considered a fringe group. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
(ec) First, as I stated above, I understand that my personal objections to myth on negative connotations I understand to be severely truncated, if not completely abrogated and nullified, by policy. Now, continuing to my original monster of a post: As far as I can tell, you understand correctly. If you read the article, you'll see the damn near only things it deals with right now beyond repeating the text of the Bible are exegetical questions about specific Hebrew words in the current form of the textual narrative (that is to say, it is predominately concerned with the literary form of the myth), as the myth has been in this narrative container as we now have it since 500 years before Christ at the latest. It deals little with the mythology as mythology (say, how CS Lewis in The Great Divorce handled the mythology of Hell). I'm not over at Christian mythology trying to get it moved to Christian narrations, am I? When I am done with my rewrite (indeed, that is a main problem I am hoping to rectify, that vast tracts of the article repeat the Biblical text with sub-study-Bible quality quasi-exegetical annotations), we can see if it deals more with Genesis mythology per se (as I can not include the cosmogonies of the Psalms or Job in it for reasons of scope), and, at that time, you may find me amenable (or leading a push) to move this to "Genesis creation mythology", or to fork it in to several articles (any, some, or more of the below, working titles): the current, dealing with exegesis and form; GCM, dealing with content; Genesis in theology, dealing with interpretations and the impact in Christian and Jewish theology; Historical interpretations of Genesis, dealing with what it says on the tin; and Old Testament creation mythology, including the cosmogonies from all parts of the OT (or, if I can find enough RS, separate ones for Job creation narrative/mythology and Psalms creation narrative/mythology, but I doubt there's enough meat to justify separate articles for them), as, under my loquacious, verbose, long-winded and never-ceasing hand, the article has more than almost quadrupled in size from ~70k prose to over 240k with refs, and I'm about a third of the way through (which is at best a disorganized stub: I will need to edit and trim it substantially while fleshing out the cites before posting even the alpha0.1 version to userspace; I'm not making the changes as I go and then editing, and then uploading to userspace as 1) I don't want to get bogged down in debates on everything in trivial issues (such as this two-month long debate about the first sentence of the lead) and never finish; let all of the debates, WP:BRD, revisions, and reversions come at once when I'm done, and 2) I don't want to reduce the article from B-class while it is live. That was one mother-fucker of a sentence, and I actually think it's grammatically adequate (if it isn't, please point it out, because I just ran in to German-language lengths with that behemoth). St John Chrysostomview/my bias22:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if you're wrong (about the intent of the article), but somewhere along the way it got side-tracked in to a theologically liberal, very, very basic exegetical commentary with a dearth of actual Hebrew which glosses over most of the text, spends an inordinate amount of time on "bara" and a few other transliterated words, and touches a few other subjects seemingly as afterthoughts (for credit where credit is due, I think virtually all of the good stuff was put here by User:PiCo). St John Chrysostomview/my bias22:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, cool. Sorry it took you so much writing - I appreciate it, and think we're pretty clear now. Hmm... You've got me thinking; I'm going to withdraw for a bit and see where others want to take this. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Was it grammatically correct? If so, I just managed to write a hundred-word circa two-hundred-fifty(!) word Ciceronian Latin sentence in English. Time to call Guinness, and drink a Guinness. St John Chrysostomview/my bias22:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Please don't use the pipe as an excuse to write ridiculously verbose blather that pleases no one. If there is reason to think this story isn't a creation myth, explain so that editors can remove it. Otherwise, KISS (keep it simple, stupid). 24.215.188.24 (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
What about a parenthetical on Genesis creation myth, like this. Would that work for everyone? Feel free to revert back to the stable version if anyone disagrees. — Jess· Δ♥22:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
RM closure
It's certainly not an original strategy: Post a bunch of sleazy personal attacks and then close the discussion to prevent a reply. The substance of the RM had nothing to do with the "myth" issue, so there should be no need for me to dwell on that. (However, I did put "myth" on the ngram if anyone wants to see how it graphs.) The references provided support the proposed title by giving the name of this subject as creation. Kauffner (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted the close as the closer should not have been closing as they were involved (OK, that link applies to admin actions but the same principle applies here and is also spelt out in the closure instructions). Personally I think the new RM is significantly different to the last one to let it run it's course but I've only skim read that one so if another more knowledgeable uninvolved editor (by which I mean not commented on any RM or similar here) thinks the grounds already been covered then I wouldn't object to an early close. Dpmuk (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I meant no personal attack, but after two weeks of Rf/Everythings, this is getting ridiculous. I will show with quotes what I meant by using sources dishonestly, and, I think it is obvious, as an involved party, why I believe this RfM is nothing but backlash to the last one. (See Noformation's remarks, while snarky). The sources you provide give support for having "creation" in the name, but "creation myth" does as well:
Google search: proves nothing. It can not sort reliable sources from unreliable. If ten thousand blogs and personal websites say "unvarnished truth!" and one exegetical commentary or theologian says, "mythological" - guess what, it's mythological.
Dictionary of the Bible: "Creation: The biblical myth of the origin of the universe. There are two accounts in Genesis of the creation by God." (first sentence.)
Encyclopedia of Science and Religion: I can't provide a quote because Christianity isn't even mentioned, just "Abrahamic religions". Neither "narrative", "myth", nor "story" are used. (Confirmed by Control+F.)
Oxford: "Creation. In theology, the notion that the universe was brought into being out of nothing by a free act of God, hence termed the Creator. This teaching is characteristic of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Though a few Fathers accepted the Platonic view that in constructing the universe God made use of pre-existing matter, by the end of the 2nd cent. the thesis of creation from nothing (ex nihilo) was almost universally accepted in the Church." (Neither "narrative", "myth", nor "story" are used, confirmed by Control+F.)
Further Reading: Myths and Legends of the World: See above centered quote.
Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary: Not RS when scholarly sources are available, didn't check it anyway tried to check it, can't, it's a link to an Amazon page for buying the book (for all I know it says myth).
Doukhan: a one-page long dissertation that deals with nothing other than asserting "the documentary hypothesis is crap" that I've never heard of before. I did a Google Books search for the guy and all of his stuff is fringy, Bible-code related stuff, typical Adventist apocalyptics, and a few books about why he's a Jew and that makes him more qualified than anyone else (seriously: his book "Hebrew for theologians", the description). Google scholar returns nothing of note. St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ00:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The search results are "post-1990 English-language Google Book results", not "ten thousand blogs and personal websites," something you would know if you had read the proposal. I know I've linked to this ngram before, but I'm linking to it again in the hope that someone may look at it this time. Most of your response is about the myth vs narrative issue, i.e. you've confused my RM with the previous one. One page dissertation? Try again. 303 pagesKauffner (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, no, my last post was about "myth/narrative" v. "story", and showing that none of the sources that you provided (except for Doukhan) use the word "story", and two explicitly define it as "myth". St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ04:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
(ec)The (first) link that you provided to Doukhan is that to a .pdf "dissertation" (it's surely not an abstract, as it summarizes nothing), one and one half pages in length, with a quarter page taken up by the title. The second link is useless to me, as it's a link to buy an item from Amazon, and I have little interest in buying an Adventist critique of the rest of academia on this point (which, going by the one and one half pages you sent me, seems to be a valid inference): I don't doubt that it uses story, I doubt that it is mainstream and reliable. Again, I did look at the ngram: Google results do not establish notability, and, if you were to read the scholarly sources, you would see that "story" is hardly ever used (actually, never, in my experience), but "narrative" and "myth" both are with regularity. For notability to be established, you must link to independent (as in, "not a conglomerated list", not as in "independent from subject matter) verifiable reliable sources. The individual sources that you did link to, and that I could verify, never once used the word story, and several explicitly defined it as "myth". "Myth" and "story" are not synonyms. St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ02:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I picked one of your sources at random, "The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia". Your link was bad, so I searched myself and found it here. The words "Genesis creation story" do not appear once in the text. "Creation story" appears only once, and refers to a Sumerian flood myth. To be frank, I'm not interested in checking your remaining sources if that's the quality I can expect to find. If you have a good source which establishes 'story' as the common name, please provide a working link alongside a quote. Further, John, wekn, and others are correct that google hits are not a good indicator here. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥04:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
"The closest parallel to the Genesis Creation story is the Mesopotamian creation myth." International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 459. This link causes the relevant phrase to be highlighted in yellow, so perhaps even the Internet challenged can find it. The previous paragraph in the text refers to this subject as "the Creation story." Kauffner (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
That source appears to be alternating between descriptions, using them interchangeably, seemingly without any reason for the variations. Within that same section (on pg. 460) it describes it as both "Genesis narrative" and "Genesis accounts". - SudoGhost05:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Your link doesn't highlight it in yellow, but you are correct that it uses the phrase once. That use doesn't show up when I search the book absent quotes. Thank you for the quote and page number, which were helpful in locating it. I'm not sure one use makes a really strong case, especially as he switches back and forth referring to Genesis and others as 'myths', 'stories', 'accounts', and 'narratives'. I checked your other links as well. Many of them have the same predicament: small usage of 'story', interspersed with 'narrative' and 'myth' at least equally. I'm sorry that I wasn't able to track this down on the first pass, but I'm also sorry that its minimal use, now that I have seen it, hasn't really convinced me that it's a common label. "Creation myth" is used a lot to refer to this. "Narrative" is used quite a bit too. I see "story" used as a synonym to eliminate redundancy, but I'm not sure I'd call "creation story" the common name for this subject. — Jess· Δ♥05:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Requested move: Genesis creation narrative → Creation story in Genesis
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. The discussion below shows a clear exhaustion with the process of finding the correct title for this article. I would recommend that editors hold off on further move proposals for at least six months and spend their energy on finding consensus on the other issues surrounding this article. Aervanath (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't you feel that there is too much discussion on the name of the article? In any case the proposed name is OK by me, but so is the current name, so a change is pointless. So overall opposeGraeme Bartlett (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, another RfM? I strongly oppose (struck strongly because this page is already full of enough strong opinion, and I'm worn out from the last one) just because it's too soon after the last one, and we were finally getting back to working on the article. All of these RfMs are distracting from actually writing an encyclopedia: I expect you to find little support for this move here. Genesis creation story is also not widely used in the academic sources, such as exegetical commentaries (WBC, OTL, Interpretation, Berit Olam, International Critical, Continental, NICOT, etc.), and this article focuses almost entirely on exegetical commentary. See also my above long comments elucidating why I support the article at "narrative" with its current focus, and opposed myth (for the time being - I will likely initiate a move to "myth" if my rewrite goes according to plan). "Story" serves no purpose whatsoever, and muddies the waters - a story can be either the narrative container or the myth contained. As was pointed out to me by the proponents of moving, a mere Google result is useless for gauging reliable sources. I suggest you look at some of the ones in the bibliography instead (although, notably, they do carry a bias, and some such as Ellen G White are outright unreliable). St John Chrysostomview/my bias06:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Wait a tick - that's dishonest. I checked the sources. Oxford has no mention of the word "story". Browning explicitly defines it as a "myth". Encyclopedia of science and religion does not use the word "story" once (it uses "history" several times), and also speaks of creation myths in general as myths - it gives no special mention of or focus of Christianity, only "Abrahamic faiths". Under "further reading", it says:
"Creation Stories
People have long wondered how the world came into being. They have answered the question with stories that describe the origin of the universe or the world and usually of human life as well. Creation myths,
known as cosmogonies, express people's understanding of the world and their place in it.
Which is a more biased source than any we have here - and it uses the dreaded neutered language. If it is possible, as it is in AfD, I move for a speedy close/keep of this under incorrect assumptions/misrepresentation of sources or whatever the applicable criteria are. Sorry about this, proposer, I don't think I've seen your name here before, but you steeped in to a snake pit here - everyone has learned to be wary in the past twenty score RfC/M/D/Arb/Cabals. St John Chrysostomview/my bias06:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
This RM is not about the myth issue and the other stuff discussed above. This editor is reacting to earlier proposals and quite obviously didn't read the current one. Kauffner (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
As "story" and "narrative" are, for all intents and purposes, synonyms what purpose is served by the move? What does the newly proposed title add that is critical to the article. --Errant(chat!)09:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose "in Genesis" is more limiting than "Genesis creation whatever" as the Genesis account is echoed elsewhere. Agathoclea (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Support Since sources and NPOV don't matter anymore, why not? It's just as neutral as "narrative," likely has the same amount of academic support and so long as a 2/3rds majority support it, Keegan will close it as a move. NoformationTalk09:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I oppose using "story", though I still think "narrative" only works if the article deals with a very limited aspect of the total account of creation in Genesis. Currently it does, and "narrative" is fine and good; it is better than "story", if for no other reason, because it flags the article as being primarily a lit-crit piece concerning the narrative, and not an article about the Genesis creation story at large (i.e. it does not concern the story's life outside the text). That is, "narrative" is fine and good if - per the discussion between me and John above - the article remains tightly and exclusively focused on the narrative and literary structure. If we begin talking about cultural significance, debates over the truth of the account, or or anything outside strictly structural / technical / literary issues, either using "myth" in the title or forking the article into "Genesis creation narrative" and "Genesis creation myth / Creation story in Genesis / whatever", are the best options. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Commemnt Kauffner: this is probably not the best case in which to use search statistics -- that would only be good if there are two equally well-accepted scholarly terms. Otherwise, we create a redirect. Wekn reven19:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
SupportWP:NPOV has already been abandoned already in favour of the current title of creation narrative[12] over Creation myth[13]. Since we aren't using the term independent scholarly sources use then we may as well use a more common word than creation narrative such as creation story per WP:COMMONNAME. Others have claimed that Genesis creation story is not widely used, in a simple popularity contest through google it can be seen that "creation story" has 3 times more hits than "creation narrative" showing it is a fairly common non-academic term. Claiming that the last RfC was too recent doesn't deal with the issues of the proposal. Since others may cherry pick the sources that contain "genesis creation narrative", I find it only fair that I reciprocate in turn by getting some sources that use or talk about the "Genesis creation story" here are some sources which demonstrate "creation story" is in use:
The literary structure of the Genesis creation story
The Genesis Creation Story: Its Literary Structure, JB Doukhan - 1978 - Andrews University Press
The Genesis Creation Story VJ Doukhan - 1978 - Andrews Univ. Press
Stories of the beginning: Genesis 1-11 and other creation stories EJ van Wolde… - 1996 - Scm Press
The Creation-Story of Genesis H Radau - 2009 - Bibliolife
The Sources of the Creation Story--Genesis 1: 1-2: 4 J Morgenstern - The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, 1920 - JSTOR
The Literary Genre of Genesis, Chapter One, BK Waltke - Crux, 1991
The Creation Account in Genesis 1: 1- B Waltke - Bibliotheca Sacra, 1975
It was argued that "Story" serves no purpose whatsoever, and muddies the waters - a story can be either the narrative container or the myth contained. This appears to show that creation story is a more generic word for creation narrative and creation myth. Whilst creation myth is not in use thefore, I suggest using creation story. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I move that both current votes for "support" be ignored on grounds of direct, stated contradiction to policy and WP:POINTY - When you have a point to make, use direct discussion rather than parody - this clearly applies - nature. St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ21:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I think you have a bit of a conflict of interest to call for a strike out of opposing views. Contradiction of what policy are you referring to? I have given some reasons why Genesis creation story is preferable to Genesis creation narrative, I suggest you deal with those. I have demonstrated that creation story is in use, and since creation myth isn't the subject of the RfC I think Genesis creation story is the lesser of two evils in this RfC. I am mentioning creation myth as my first preference lest my words be twisted in any later discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
"WP:NPOV has already been abandoned already in favour of the current title of creation narrative" - that's a direct contradiction of policy, and both supports - those of yourself and Noformation - strike me as WP:POINT, based on the "page in a nutshell" quote given above. Your reasoning seems to be a distinct argument in favor of keeping "narrative", as long as the article retains its current scope and focus. What happened to all of your push for "independent academic sources"? "Story" is misleading and confusing, and is hardly ever used (except, as discovered by Mann_jess, as a way of breaking the monotony of repetition) in scholarly sources over against those designed for public consumption. "Muddying the waters" is never a good thing! St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ00:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Weak oppose. I really don't care if it's narrative or story but feel that it will be more stable at narrative. I'd personally like to see the move proposals end. ~Adjwilley(talk)00:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Attribution of Sarna's statement
Jess, I saw the archives, and I agree that attributing the statement to Sarna alone if it is the opinion of most modern scholars would be inaccurate. However, the statement without any qualification implies that only that view is fact, and any other view, such as the Bible being literally true, is fiction. I think using "According to most modern scholars…" as I have done is a reasonable compromise. It gives the full weight of the modern opinion to the statement without it looking like one person's opinion yet does not automatically invalidate the religious points of view. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I think a leaf straight out of WP:RNPOV (the paragraph right above "Fundamentalism" in bold) would work here. "Jews and Christians have traditionally believed (cite the Talmud, Augustine, New American Commentary) that Moses was the author of the Book of Genesis, who penned this book during the 40 years' wandering described in Exodus, along with the four other books of the Pentateuch, together called the Five Books of Moses. Modern scholarship, however, in the fields of higher criticism, comparative linguistics, and philology have put forth evidence that the first two chapters of Genesis are strongly influenced by the Enuma Elis, while the flood of Noah is strongly influenced by Atrahasis; some modern believers (name a group, mainline Protestants, liberal Roman Catholics) mostly accept these findings, while others (Evangelicals, conservative Protestants, LCMS, conservative Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox) mostly reject them." Thus, the modern scientific view is presented along with the traditional and still-current in some branches religious view, according to the very letter of the RNPOV policy. St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ00:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me, if implemented into the article correctly, it would show the viewpoints and prominent adherents to these viewpoints, and would show who believes what. I think this would be much better than having the "scholarly" opinion listed as The Truth™ and the "traditional" opinion being mentioned as an aside, at best. - SudoGhost03:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
And then it becomes about the myth proper, and not just exegesis, if all goes according to plan, and we can move it accordingly! :-D (As is, it will have to be split in to enough articles that I'll need one of those boxes that says, "this is a part of a series of articles on the Book of Genesis"... I'll have to learn how to write one of those). St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ03:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Avi Well, policy tells us to use wikipedia's voice when the view is uncontested. In this case, uncontested refers to modern scholarship on the topic. I'm not personally aware of any modern academic scholarship which doesn't hold that opinion. Maybe there are some, but we'd first have to show that they were at least a minority view (not fringe). If we can do that, then we should attribute it, but not to one person alone; we need to convey the proper weight, so if that is "everyone but Dr. John Smith", then attributing it to just Sarna wouldn't be enough. By the way, saying that it borrows themes from other myths doesn't mean that it isn't literal. The two are commonly reconciled by saying that "both are interpretations of the same ultimate reality", or similar. I think something like John's proposal might be good somewhere in the body, so long as it matches up with the sources, and with a few minor wording tweaks. (As one example, we couldn't say "modern scholarship...put forth" if it is the prevailing academic view, since that implies a novel hypothesis). As long as we're presenting the weight properly, this sort of construction could be helpful to presenting all views on the topic, historic and current. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥03:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking of doing a list of slashes with "put forth", but I thought "demonstrated" is too strong, "proved" is blatantly false (proof is for maths and philosophy), and couldn't think of anything else off of the top of my head. Maybe something like "Modern scholarly consensus, as presented here by Dr. Prof. X, states that...", or "Modern scholarship has presented evidence that...": of course I'll mix it up, I don't want to use it as a set phrase, and you'll get to see the sections as I think they're up to alpha grade in my userspace. I'm waiting to change the lead until absolute last, because of all the problems with it on talk, and will want a direct collaboration with several editors for it because of the contention. (No one seems to be responding to me since I changed my sig... maybe people finally got the clue and stopped listening to my rants? Or, is a signature used to differentiate people that much? As in, I easily recognize Mann_jess because of the unique special/contrib and user_talk links in the sig... after I changed mine [a week and a half too late] for Lent my attention-seekers' sixth-sense kicked in...) St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ03:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Yea, demonstrated and proved are no good. "The majority of scholars..." might be acceptable, depending on the weight of the sources; if it's "everyone vs Dr John Smith" again, then "majority" is too weak. Something like "scholarly consensus" would be ok. Other options might include "Modern scholarship indicates" or "By the [1900s], scholars established...". I'm not sure about the sig thing... I think a lot of people are worn out after the RM debacle, and maybe interest has just died down. One editor, at least, has decided to retire as a result, so there may just be less participation generally. — Jess· Δ♥04:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Is that Noformation who quit entirely? I checked his page today after his facetious "support" above and saw it blanked... I've not interacted with him much, but I've seen him around AN/I and various RfCs, in which I was involved along with him on Fae. If he decided to quit over such a...words fail to describe it...debacle and caustic atmosphere on this page, Wikipedia has suffered a loss - and for what? I don't know if PiCo quit entirely, but he was the most prolific contributor to this page, and has left this topic at least due to the WP:BATTLEGROUND, another loss to Wikipedia. Those alone should suffice to demonstrate that this page has become toxic. I wonder how long I'll last. If only there was a way to enforce a de-escalation here. St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ05:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'd prefer not to speak for Noformation, but you can check his contribs to see what he's said about this elsewhere on WP. To be honest, I share some of that frustration. This topic (religion) is gamed frequently, and becomes heated easily, and independent of my opinion on the matter, I also read consensus differently than it was closed and was surprised at the lack of subsequent review. But, that's a discussion for another time. I can see how editors could have left the page due to the 35+ pages of frustrating content above, but if they have, then hopefully they'll be back soon. Anyway, feel free to draw up a solid proposal (like above) for this piece, and insert it into the article if you're feeling bold. I can make changes/discuss if I think anything's off. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥06:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm always feeling bold - I think it was my entry into the fray here (in removing myth, ironically, a position that I've since disowned come to champion its opposite) that sparked off all of these Rf*s, unless one a week is standard operating procedure for this article. I might get to work writing something up for the article as-is, and try to keep it at the current scope in the rewrite and do a bunch of forks, as I was keeping the lead for last for two reasons, 1) contentious nature, 2) it needs to summarize the rest of the article, which I'm far from even knowing what will be in it - one thing leads to another and piles and piles of new information and prose, forking of its own free will. However, as things are shaping up, to summarize the article (which I am beginning to think has exceeded its SCOPE in my redaction), the lead will have to have its own Table of Contents. St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ07:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Consensus for first sentence.
Either a piped link to the definition of creation myth (taken directly out of the first sentence of the article "creation myth", and a dictionary definition of creation myth - it's not like it's an easteregg): I don't see how that can be taken in the wrong way; the definition of creation myth, and a link to it.
Otherwise, a link directly in the bold Genesis creation myth and breaking MOS (which is only a guideline), or some other way of wording is needed, such as The Genesis creation narrative, the literary container/form/Hebrew/whatever contains/is a/is the creation myth/Genesis creation myth, a symbolic narrative of the world's creation written in....". As is, repeating the words "creation myth" twice in five words, isn't just bad flow or amateurish... it strikes me as so bad that I wouldn't trust this article as a source of information ("don't judge a book by it's cover", but I'm still not sure that would be a bad result... God works in mysterious ways, eh?). Any other suggestions that I've not thought of are welcome. Note, that I view these as stylistic concerns, not otherwise (and the stylistic/prose/formattting issues on this article were so bad, I started editing it - almost all the rest of my edits are WP:WikiGnome). St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ21:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why the repetition is a bad thing? The first sentence of the lede should be concise, and replacing a wikilinked description with part of the definition seems to go against that goal. There are many articles that repeat something that is part of a title when it qualifies as both part of a title and part of the concise description of the article's subject. For example, Amador Valley High School and Battle of Cannae, both featured articles (which are supposed to be Wikipedia's "very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing"), have this same repetition of High School and Battle, respectively, except they have qualifiers explaining what kind of High School / battle / whatever. Perhaps it would be better to add a qualifier to it to specifiy what kind of creation myth it is? For example:
The Genesis creation narrative (or Genesis creation myth) is the Judeo-Christian creation myth contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis...
Whether that specific qualifier is the most accurate or not, I don't know, I'm sure if it isn't someone could describe it more accurately than I could. - SudoGhost22:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done something similar to that. Separating out the repetition by just a few words improves the reading of the article much, although not as greatly as the pipe. I believe "Judaeo-Christian" is an accurate qualifier, because Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Mohammedans, and Daoists generally don't take it as part of their religion or culture/heritage, Jews and Christians do, and it is the primary Judaeo-Christian myth (with a few others that aren't even known outside of academic circles, in Psalms and Job). If it is possible to break the MOSBOLDTITLE guideline, I think, "The Genesis creation narrative or Genesis creation myth is the symbolic story of the..." is superior (see my comments above as to why I think "Genesis creation myth" is a poor descriptor for the article in its current state: essentially, as it doesn't deal with the myth, but only with a few narrow exegetical questions that depend on the textual form of the narrative). St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ22:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The reason I'm unsure if Judeo-Christian is the most accurate description is because I don't know if Abrahamic would be better. I honestly have no idea if Islam would qualify as well, because I do see similarities. I'm inclined to believe that they are similar, but not enough to call them the same story/narrative/myth/account. However, I'd rely on someone more knowledgeable about this, I'm no expert on similarities between Islamic and Judeo/Christian texts by any means. - SudoGhost23:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
As in an earlier discussion (maybe archived), Islam does not view the Genesis account in any high regard, as Islam has its own creation myths (sort of) in the Koran. I was going to include a section on Muslim views, but in my search for sources (in both Arabic and English) found that the only ones (and those not independent, reliable, or scholarly, mainly SPS) that deal with Genesis are to use it to support the 6-day creation view among Muslims (the Koran gives two contradictory accounts of creation, one taking six days and another taking eight) - it is not treated as a text or creation myth in its own right, and has no bearing on Muhammad's religion. The general rule with Islam and the tahrif of the Scriptures is that "what is said in the Bible is true if the Koran or sahih hadith confirm it, it may be true or false if the Koran or sahih hadith say nothing on it (kind of like an Islamic adiaphora), and is useless if the Koran does not agree with it", as Caliph Umar said about the library of Alexandria (sic) and redistributing the books taken as booty when asked by his general: "If what it contains agrees with the Koran, then Allah has given us better guidance; if it disagrees with the Koran, it is of Satan; in either case, it is of no use to us, burn it." (paraphrase).
(I was a Muslim and did undergrad studies in comparative religions, if that counts for anything, but trying to source this assertion is much like trying to prove a negative; the Islamic account is drawn from the Koran and ahadith, not from Genesis [although Genesis undoubtedly influenced it or was the main inspiration for those accounts], and there are many distinctions in the order of creation, the naming of animals, the fall of the angels [plays a much larger role in Koran], Adam and Eve being created in paradise [heaven, not Eden] and then being cast down to earth, the circumstances [or lack thereof] of Eve's creation, etc. up to the point where the Islamic accounts diverge completely at the Fall [Gen 3]; also, in the Koran and ahadith, these incidents and some details about them are spread randomly throughout the entire book and corpus of ahadith, an ayah here, a few ayat there, a hadith there, not gathered in one section or passage where it's easily identified.) St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ00:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
To a Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim, I'm sure the differences are extremely striking, but to a Buddhist looking at it from the outside with no knowledge of comparing the two, they appear to have very similar themes, names, events, etc. Between the two, the what appears to be the same, but details about the how and why seem to differ. That's why I wasn't sure about Judeo-Christian being the best wording, but if Islam's creation narrative isn't comparable for the purposes of the lede, then Judeo-Christian would be better than Abrahamic, no arguments here. - SudoGhost01:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to add "(Genesis Creation Myth)" in the first sentence, unless it is simply for the sake of POV pushing, as it is redundant and unnecessary.....It therefore should be removed. Willietell (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the redundant material, now there remains the issue of the POV spin later in the sentence that needs to be discussed. Willietell (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It is tendentious editing, IMO, but I would refrain for a bit before taking it to ANI, as very few people have had spotless behavior on this page in the past weeks, and I think WP:BOOMERANG is more than likely. St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ04:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Er... not to be only a gadfly, but the term "judeo-christian" is problematic in a lot of ways. Specifically, it is a Christian term used to suggest a common religious ethic/experience/etc between Judaism and christianity, which Christians are much more likely to support than Jews... "Abrahamic" is not much better, as Christianity is really Mithraic (Zoroastrian) in origin, but I'm willing to let go of that point. So, "Abrahamic" is fine, but oppose "Judeo-Christian" on ground that it is not really as neutral as it sounds to many American and Christian ears. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
So, for a suggestion "... the primary creation myth in Jewish and Christian [literature/scripture]" would be more accurate than the current phrasing in the lede, I think... DigitalHoodoo (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. I suggested "Judeo-Christian creation myth" because I thought it would help with concerns of redundancy to add some sort of qualifier specifying what kind of creation myth it was, but if there are concerns that Judeo-Christian isn't the best term to use, I'm not attached to it in any way. - SudoGhost20:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
meh, I changed it; it may stay or may not. I think the current line conveys the same information, is not redundant, and sidesteps the Christocentrism (w00t for rampant neologisms) of "judeo-christian." I don't really care about the term's use later in the text, as I expect the language of the article at large will reflect the common terminology of Christian scholars/theologians (as is proper for a specialized article like this). DigitalHoodoo (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I strongly oppose Abrahamic, as it is inaccurate, and covers at least one other religion - Islam - if not Baha'ism as well, which this article has no bearing on. I will compromise at "Jewish and Christian" (as, to my mind, that's exactly what "Judaeo-Christian" means). As for Christianity being of Zoroastrian or Mithraic origin, I suggest you take that to a different article that deals with such hypotheses (as I have never seen a reliable source that says that orthodox [or, for the Bauer-Ehrman hypothesis, "proto-orthodox"] Christianity derives from anything but Judaism or is considered anything other than Abrahamic, maybe with a touch of pagan celebrations and use of incense here and there, as all religions are influenced to a point by the environments in which they exist) but I know not where it is. St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ01:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Assumes that the narrative is a symbolic one
I have to tag this article as "POV", i.e., biased toward a particular POV. By labeling the narrative as a creation myth, we are asserting that the creation narrative is "a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it." Not everyone accepts this. It is in fact controversial.
The viewpoint of most modern scholars may be that it's a symbolic narrative, but a non-trivial number of people take it literally.
I would suggest that we mention the clash between (1) those who regard the account as "symbolic" and (2) those who take it literally. -Uncle Ed (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
We've been over the 'creation myth' bit so many times it's crazy. We had an RfC about it last December, and many discussions since then. Consensus has firmly concluded that the label is appropriate. Having a discussion about it again is fine, per WP:CCC and all, but tagging the article before you've established that consensus has shifted is probably not helpful. I'm going to remove the tag for now. If consensus has changed over the last month, then we can remove the label, but the tag isn't necessary. — Jess· Δ♥17:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Jess, I reverted your tag removal, as it conceals the utter lack of consensus over the 'creation myth' bit. Sweeping the problem under the rug won't make it go away. And I do believe there is a way to apply NPOV to this issue in a way that will satisfy all supporters of NPOV policy.
I'm not going to edit war with you over this. I'll simply refer you to the Wikipedia:NPOV dispute how-to guide, which says:
Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral.
It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.
Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. However, repeatedly adding the tag is not to be used as a means of bypassing consensus or dispute resolution. If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag.
The NPOV dispute will end when each side agrees that the article is neutral, i.e., that it does not favor any particular view over another. Assuming good faith, i.e., that everyone here wants nothing but a fair description of all significant points of view, I'm firmly convinced that we can come up with a mutually satisfactory wording. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm a God-damned (take that as you will) conservative traditional Papist, and I put it there in the first place. (Although I did spark this series of interminable RfXs by removing it at first.) If you dare, read the 50+ pages of discussion above. If this was "Johnopedia", it would declare the world to be no older than 6,016 years (maybe 7,242 if I follow the Septuagint) and rail against the liberalism of intelligent design advocates, but it isn't, and mythology is mythology - some is true, some isn't, which doesn't change that it's myth (CS Lewis writes extensively about this) - but, unlike on Johnopedia, we must use every weapon at our disposal to be certain that we pass no more judgment on the truth-value of the Eddas than we do on the words of Creation in Genesis. I do agree that some editors here want to put "myth" in solely to push "Scientific Point of View" (failed policy) and to assert falsity, but, as has been established, the use of a word by a man or group does not change its definition for our purposes, until the dictionary definition of that word changes. The greater issue is that a WP:BATTLE is being fought over the lead alone, and the imbalance and poor writing of the article itself is ignored (which I am currently bogged down in writing a doorstopper in attempting to rectify it); the focus on the lead - especially the first sentence alone - in this article has become myopic to the point of absurdity. St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ02:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
No, Ed. Consensus has already been reached. Without demonstrating that consensus has shifted, placing the tag is not constructive. and consensus does not mean that "each side agrees that the article is neutral, i.e., that it does not favor any particular view over another." That kind of "consensus" is absolutely unattainable. Consensus is among editors, not "sides". You're confusing proponents with WP editors. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is we don't have "an ongoing dispute" about using creation myth in the article. We have an ongoing dispute over the naming of the article. Using the label creation myth within the article has been discussed again and again, and there has never been anything but consensus for its inclusion. You're attempting to discuss an issue which has already been discussed within the past month, and already has firm consensus. That's fine, but tagging the article regarding an issue which was very recently settled isn't helpful. I'm going to remove it again. If someone else thinks there is an "ongoing dispute" regarding this issue, I won't revert their addition of the tag. But, right now, all I see is one editor disputing consensus, not "an ongoing dispute" in which a tag would be appropriate.
I don't mean to come of as impersonal, I'm just following convention here. BTW, I'm fine with including mention in the body of the "symbolic vs literal" issue. That content would, of course, be independent of the creation myth label, but it would be good to include if we have strong sources for it. If you can draft up a proposal, that might be helpful. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥18:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Ed, there is no conflict between "(1) those who regard the account as "symbolic" and (2) those who take it literally." This has been discussed above, with reliable sources backing up the fact that a creation myth can be both symbolic and literal. Symbolic does not mean "not-literal" and something being literal does not mean that it is "non-symbolic". They aren't mutually exclusive terms. These are descriptions given in reliable sources, and no reliable sources have been presented that demonstrates your claim that "symbolic" is controversial. - SudoGhost21:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Wolfie, you miss the point - that is the same individual doing symbolic interpretation can also believe it's literal history. That it can be both literal history and contain deeper symbolic meaning in accord with the four senses of scripture and the sensius plenor ("fuller sense", although that is generally applied to show prescience for our time on the part of ancient authors). If I could write one, I'd design a rubric with these, but there can be several positions: 1. Purely symbolic with no literal core; 2. Fully literal with deeper symbolic meaning; 3. Literal with no more symbolic meaning than A History of the Crusades (I am not aware of a single person who has ever held this view); 4. Symbolic with a literal core; 5. Complete nonsense. It should be pretty obvious which ones of those are mutually exclusive. St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ04:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Damn, I didn't see all this motion so I made a dummy edit stating: "this was resolved earlier, in the direction that "symbolic" does not conflict with nor preclude "literal", as historical events may literally have happened, and still be drenched in symbolic meaning (even though this is my personal POV - full disclosure)" - this is the very basis of the "four senses of scripture" and the "sensius plenor" - "so, that even if the narrative is literally true, it is still symbolic in all cases, as no group who reads the narrative as true, reads it without ascribing any, at least some, deeper meaning to the words and events, not even historical-grammatical exegetes" - such as "Faith, Form, and Time" (YEC; Kurt Wise), or "Genesis 1-4: a Linguistic, Literary and Theological Evaluation" [sic - I think that's the name] by C John Collins (not quite historical-grammatical but still very conservative). St Augustine himself was a young-earth creationist who interpreted Genesis symbolically, and wrote "On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis" - even though he believed the world was 4,400 years old and would last for only 6,000, he was the first that I know of to point out that the first days of Genesis couldn't have been solar days, as the greater light wasn't created until the fourth. He read it literally and symbolically. One can pull up more examples of this than can even be enumerated on a Wiki page, almost as St John said: "If all of the wondrous deeds were written down, I doubt that there would be enough paper in the world to contain them" (paraphrase). St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ04:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Ed Poor: read the second paragraph in this section above Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Attribution of Sarna's statement, and see if that is satisfactory - that is the direction my rewrite is heading for those parts that can be referenced, but, as far as "symbolic" goes, everyone, from Augustine and Chrysostom to Maimonides and Rashi to Brueggemann and Wenham and Sarna, have taken it to be symbolic even if at the same time they took it to be literal - there is no contradiction, even though one poster here has attempted to maintain that it is a contradiction, the vast majority agree with the sources that it is not), so I will not set up a SYNTH/OR POV false dichotomy between "literal" and "symbolic": at most will be asserted, "Group X takes this literally, but still believes it has a deeper, symbolic meaning [look at all of the commentary on Gen 1:26 and say that a single exegete hasn't], whereas Group Y asserts that it is only symbolic, with no core of literal historical truth. Of course, Group Z believes that it is plain nonsense." St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ04:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Uncle Ed. My comments that it closed as no consensus are related to the title of the page. Please don't misrepresent what I said last week to justify your own edit warring here: [14]. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The lead says that the Genesis creation narrative is "the textual form of the Genesis creation myth". What does that mean - there's some other form as well? PiCo (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
No, it is the only textual form of the myth - see discussions above. It seems to satisfy editors, and it is factually accurate from my intense reading of the sources: the "narrative" is the textual form or words of the story (which this article deals with almost exclusively - such as beresith, bara, yatsar, nepesh, etc. - exegesis), whereas the "myth" is the story told by the words (which this article hardly deals with at all). St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ07:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I still don't understand what it's trying to say - it seems to imply that there's another form that isn't textual. PiCo (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The current wording (the parenthesised bit with "textual form") is very very poor. The intent seems to be to 'soften the blow' of the word 'myth', which is neither necessary, nor consistent with policy. It would be much better to simply have, "The Genesis creation narrative or Genesis creation myth", without parentheses. (Strictly speaking, myth should be primary per policy, but that horse has bolted.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I understand what you;re trying to do, but I don't think it works. Possibly nothing will ever work. But I think Lisa's suggestion was about the best we've seen - she wanted to have two sentences. PiCo (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Jeffro - I actually added it with the intent of strengthening myth, to say the narrative was merely the container of the myth. (To me, that strengthened myth, as what is contained is of import, the container of less). The non-parenthesized versions runs in to two major issues: "creation myth" being repeated twice in five words (including the two words of "creation myth"), and an equivocation of the narrative and the myth, which are separate (that is, the myth is the actual story or account, the narrative is only the words of the account as we've been handed them, and which this article currently focuses on). My preferred revision is thus: "The Genesis creation narrative [contains or is] the Genesis creation myth, the primary symbolic narrative of the world's creation for both Jews and Christians" (I never got the objections to that, since the pipe is the definition of creation myth from the article creation myth). I'll go ahead and make a bold edit if the current version is that bad and take the heat for it, but, we really should try to focus on improving the article, instead of myopically viewing the first sentence alone in isolation. St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ09:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
What I think will work, if I may blow my own horn, is, once I have finished my massive expansion of this article and removed its narrowly exegetical focus, to move it to "Genesis creation myth" and have the consensus lead from the RfM: "The Genesis creation myth is the symbolic narrative...." (But there likely will be backlash from the more stubborn editors on the move, if we can even get it. Note that my objection to the title wasn't inherent, but is due to the current narrow scope of the article.) St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ09:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the creation myth is distinct from the narrative in any practical sense. I really don't think it's necessary to say that one contains the other. I have no objection to the piped link (apart from prevous comments about 'symbolic', but I can live with that).
When I suggested renaming the article per policy, I was labelled (all by a single editor) 'a POV pusher', 'confused', 'acting in bad faith', and it was claimed that policy supporting the move rename was merely "a claim by Jeffro and his friends" (making friends has never been easier, apparently). Good luck.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
A single-word female name who edited policy and made many WP:EASTEREGGs? I know - bad reflection on the "keep" side of that debate. (And the more I reflect on that, the more I realize that but for my myopic focus on my own logic-chopping the difference between "narrative" and "myth" and some UCN quibbling, on the whole, the result wasn't actually "no consensus", and I doubt the Decider took in to consideration such a minute distinction in [some of the] literature [as much of it does use the terms interchangeably].) I wonder what kind of flack I'll catch when I re-propose when I'm done with the rewrites (probably a few months off, but I'm trying to make sure it's done in time for the WikiGrail), whether "they" will even remember my original opposition, whether I'll become an atheistic, anti-religious POV-pushing traitor (that will make me the only atheist alive more Catholic than the Pope), or what - I suppose I can pull out a diff to my oppose, and my favorite line when I decide to waffle: "fuck you, Plato, for telling me to follow the argument wherever it leads!" Maybe I can convince one of you to puppet for me and re-propose when I'm ready so I ain't lose ma' creds? St John ChrysostomΔόξατω Θεώ15:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Since John mentioned it, I'm sure everyone is wondering, "what is the WikiGrail?" Well, thanks for asking:
The WikiGrail is a championship that takes place every year on Wikipedia. It is sponsored by WikiProject Christianity and is open to any Christianity-related project member. The WikiGrail is played and won by skill of editing. The purpose of the WikiGrail is to encourage content improvement, make editing more fun and increase membership of Christianity-related projects. The 2012 WikiGrail will begin on March 1 and finish on June 30. Signups for the 2012 WikiGrail are OPEN.
Btw John, Toa from WP:Christian Music is kicking ass. As an impartial judge I can't show favoritism, but just so you know, WP:Catholic is counting on you. – Lionel(talk)01:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I made the following edit to the lead in an attempt to balance the statement so that Wikipedia does not appear to take sides in the argument as to whether creationism is a historical fact or a mythological story. Editor Mann jess reverted it requesting that I open a discussion about it in talk, therefore I am seeking input, once again, on the lead section of this article. Here is my edit:
The Genesis creation narrative is the primary creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity. It is presented in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the bible. This article primarily deals with the narrative elements or form of the myth, that is, exegesis of the text of the narrative containing what is viewed as a historical account by many adherents to Christianity and Judaism and is presented in the bible at Genesis 1:1-2:24. Willietell (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll allow other users to comment, but for accessibility, here's Willietell's diff. I have two basic issues with this proposal. "Many adherents" seems weasely to me, and if we're going to clarify biblical literalism in the lead, I think we can find a better way to do it. Secondly, this doesn't seem to be the right place to be adding this content. The sentence being changed is clarifying the scope of the article, not discussing whether the bible is to be taken literally. If this is to be clarified, it should be done in a separate sentence (or paragraph), the description should be specific, it should reflect the body if present in the lead, and it over all else it should be sourced. I'm not necessarily opposed to adding content on the literalist issue, but I just don't think this proposal cuts it. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥04:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Mann-Jess - this sentence is not the right place for this comment.
Willietell asks to open a discussion on "whether creationism is a historical fact or a mythological story". The fact is that the overwhelming majority of those who study the bible agree that it's not historical fact. Not only those who study the bible, either: scientists have their theories on how the world and the universe began, and these theories have no connection with the story in Genesis. The opinions of "believers" can't change this. Willie, I' genuinely sorry that this causes you pain, but it's the facts. PiCo (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the proposed addition of "viewed as a historical account by many adherents..." is ill-advised, since it burdens the lead with tangential text. Since there is no mention of Biblical literalism (nor its close cousin, Biblical inerrancy) in this article, perhaps "See also" could use another link or two. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
