Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
{{dyktalk|22 February|2007|entry=...that according to the ''']''' of ] Chapter One, the first three days of ] are ] reflected in the last three days of creation?}}
|target=Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive index
|target=Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive index
Line 29:
Line 57:
}}
}}
{{TOC limit|1}}
== Scholarly consensus and other POVs ==
Frankly, after all the above chatter and subsequent edits to find consensus, the result as I read it has been a loss of perspicuity and cogency. The lede is too long and detailed as it stands. It needs to set out a straightforward and clear overview of the topic which reflects the ''scholarly'' consensus of the topic. Further nuance that currently invades the lead should be left for the body. In my view, the earlier version that simply set out how scholars understand the construction and origins of genesis was much better. Finally, I might observe that overly long leads that start to lose themselves in this kind of detail, scream edit war and turn off readers interested in basic information about the topic. So in the ened, editors fight amongst themselves whilst sending readers scurrying elsewhere. ] (]) 19:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
: Scholarly consensus is simply one POV and we can't be biased to one view over another on this topic. --] (]) 20:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
::That's not how NPOV works Gorlitz. NPOV means that we do, by definition, bias ourselves toward the scholarly consensus.] (]) 21:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
:::If we're going to have a note (and this is one thing I actually did propose first, and was argued out of seeing the necessity of it above), the current revision paraphrasing the Encyclopaedia Brittanica is fine. No objections. BTW, I did like whoever had the essay of religious writings in their userspace - but my personal sympathies, if they don't align with academic consensus, can have no bearing on your, my, or his edits to Misplaced Pages. ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 22:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
:::: Two comments:
::::# @Farsight001 "Editing from a '''neutral point of view''' ('''NPOV''') means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been ]." So that means if only academic sources are represented, then it's POV. ''That'' is how how NPOV works.
::::# The current note does meet my objections with leaving the phrase bare, although the mechanism of tracing the note may result in problems for some, but that should not be our concern. --] (]) 22:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::*Actual question (don't bite): "I am not aware of a scholarly, academic source which suspects that Genesis is a historical account outside of (perhaps) Christian/Jewish/Muslim theology...": this kind of idea (that Genesis is historical in some sense) is present in many, if not most, published sources (as are most influenced by Jewish or Christian theology to some degree, including virtually every ref given in the article), even if they are not by men who are considered the greatest exegetes alive (like Brown, Luke Timothy Johnson, Sarna, Brueggemann, Carson, Wenham, etc., etc.): doesn't ] necessitate including it somewhere in the article (a note seems like a better place than the body of the article to me, but even sections on "Genesis in Theology - Religion X", due to the fact that more than 50% of people alive are adherents of one of those religions? (I'm going to take a random guess and say about 20% of people are literal believers in them, given the polls I've seen over the years where even 22-26% of Brits and Americans held geocentrism to be true.) This must be balanced with the top-echelon scholarly consensus (as is presented properly in the lead, with all major scholarly viewpoints represented proportionately to their prevalence per word) as well, though, so (thinking aloud) I do not believe it is valid to include such (even if widely published, as they are views not held by the top echelon of exegetes) in the body of the article itself; we don't make 25% of the article on the solar system about Ptolemaic system because 25% of people don't know any better. Essentially, how do we determine weight? Is it depending solely on those sources judged to be superior, or depending on all mainstream published sources?
:::::As a note, I ''do'' believe Genesis 1 to be history, as do many of these quoted scholars - of course it's not history in the modern sense (that is, scientific history), which wasn't even a glimmer in the mind of any man until Gibbon wrote ''The Decline and Fall''. For comparison, I'm assuming at least one of you have read Livy: do you think the Roman standard-bearers actually threw the golden eagle in to the ranks of the enemy whenever the tide of battle was turning, so that the legions would be ashamed, rush the enemy to catch up with the standard and rout them, or is it a symbolic motif? The "days of creation" are much like "throwing the standard" in Livy: it's history, but not history in the sense we've used the term since the Enlightenment. If I've expressed myself poorly, I apologize. ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 22:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::*Does something like this satisfy those objectors to the current note? (Note, that I do believe the current note to be fully acceptable): "'Creation myth' is used in this article in the academic sense defined in the Encyclopedia Britannica: a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it. It implies no judgment on the '''religious''' truth-value of what is thus described. See article ] for further details."? ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 22:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::: It addresses most, if not all, of the concerns raised to date. As such I think it would be acceptable. I would like direct input from Zenkai251 as he (assuming male-ness) started this discussion. --] (]) 22:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Fine by me too. I do doubt that our literalist readers will stop to consider what it means, let alone follow the link, but at least it will be there and we can refer them to it. ] (]) 23:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::No, I very much disagree with including wording which discusses, in any sense, the 'truth' of Genesis. That is not our job, and by saying "this doesn't mean Genesis is false", we directly imply that it may be true, which is entirely unwarranted. As an academic encyclopedia, must be impartial to the topic. John, I read through your comment, and I'm absolutely amazed by some of it; you went so far as to say that the idea Genesis is true appears in "most published sources". That's nonsense. My intention is not to be uncivil or uncollaborative, but to convey the depth of my amazement that other editors are agreeing with that kind of sentiment. We can't be basing content issues on random guesses about the number of people who might believe something, which appears to be one of the prime arguments for this wording. I'd like to stress, again, that controversial articles get these kinds of drive-by complaints all the time. We cannot compromise neutrality by making claims about the historical validity of Genesis just to appease those editors. Providing the definition of ] in the note is plain and obvious without associated neutrality/scope concerns. If an editor can't read or understand that note, the correct response is to direct them to the article, and to the ample references we have for the term. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 23:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I like John's wording. It's much better than the current wording. I say go ahead and make the change. ] (]) 23:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}}Mann Jess, you misunderstand me: I said (or meant to say, as I apologized in advance for being unclear) that in most published sources, Genesis is held to be true ''in some sense'' or to contain history ''in some sense'' - it's hardly ever held to be literally true, nor narrative history, but it is held ''to contain truth'', although generally in a symbolic manner (e.g. the many interpretations of the story of the fall, which never include an apple; the statements about Gen 1 being about God's providence or majesty in the lead, and the interpretation of creation as manifesting the author's intention of demonstrating the dependence of everything on God : it is held to contain this sort of symbolic history/myth/"timeless truth", not literal truth of narrative history:). I said, ''"of course it's not history in the modern sense (that is, scientific history)"'', and directly compared it to (fictional) symbolic motifs in Livy (specifically, the recurring throwing of the Eagle standard in to enemy ranks). Many (most) of these sources call it ''symbolic history'' (Brueggemann, Wenham) or myth (which are essentially the same thing, according to the definition given: "a symbolic account of..."). In that sense, "history" no more implies "certain, narrative truth regarding the past" than does "myth" imply "certain, narrative falsehood regarding the past".
I believe most other editors are agreeing because they were able to muddle their way through my unclear prose: if they took it the way you have, I would disagree with it myself! I added "religious truth" to my proposed wording to make it clear that it had nothing to do with its historical truth-value one way or the other. As I said, I am content with the note the way it is (or with no note at all), but, echoing PiCo above, spoke in the hope that it will stabilize the first sentence of the article, and will be an acceptable wording to those two or three editors still objecting.
I will hold for at least a bit more discussion before I make the proposed change (including a reply from you to my hopefully-clarified statement) due to your objection. ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 01:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
:Oh, and the random guesses of numbers had nothing to do with the wording - they were a completely separate post, a thinking-aloud sort of musing on, "should there be sections or articles such as 'Genesis in Theology - Religion X'", along with addressing the views of other posters raised about N/POV. (The three comments had, I believe, seven trains of thought between them.) As regards to the other posters, if you read the entirety of the comment, you'll see that I conclude, "no, I don't think it's legitimate to add such in , seeing how we don't give 25% of the article on solar system over to Ptolemaic views". I'm not a journalist: the little writing I do is extremely complex prose narrative, and some philosophy and theology (which has to be copy-edited before it's fit for publication, and also gives rise to my incessant need to qualify every statement, which you overlooked): I have to try to keep my length down and intelligibility up when I write, as demonstrated by giving rise to misunderstanding in an obviously intelligent editor.
:As Cicero said, and I must on Misplaced Pages aspire to: “When you wish to speak, be concise; that the minds of men take in quickly what you say, learn it, and retain it correctly. Every word that is superfluous only pours over the side of a brimming mind.” ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 03:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
::As Cicero ''should'' have said: "Keep it simple!" ] (]) 06:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Stupid! It's ironic that I never noticed that Cicero's rhetoric is the antithesis of what he's preaching in that snippet, and I simplified it significantly by quoting from memory. I'm more like Cicero does (however much less eloquent) and less as Cicero preaches. ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 12:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This remark above to my comment, ''Scholarly consensus is simply one POV and we can't be biased to one view over another on this topic'' is astonishing from someone who wishes to contribute to an encyclopedic treatment of a topic. By this logic, we should go to every single article that makes reference to an event or development more than 6,000 years old and qualify it based on the extant views of some who argue, in published sources, that God created the Heavens and the Earth 6,000 years ago. Like Mastodons. Or Quasars. It is so mind-bogglingly indefensible, so astonishingly wrong, that I cannot even think how to respond other than to suggest the editor seriously consider how he or she thinks an encyclopedia should be written if scholarly consensus is not to be considered authoritative in the construction and dissemination of knowledge. I mean, really? I cannot believe that was actually written down and saved. Maybe you should try Conservapedia, where the view that reality has a well-known liberal bias is warmly endorsed. ] (]) 14:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
:I wholeheartedly agree, I think Misplaced Pages already makes far too many concessions to extreme, minority pseudo-scientific views ] (]) 15:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
:: Your position is so mind-bogglingly indefensible that it astounds me. We're not talking about nut-jobs but "orthodox" authors. The issue is simple: there was a split in scholarship starting around 150 years ago. We are only reflecting one branch.
:: Just a side point, since "scholarship" places the writing of Genesis to 600 BC, not sure how you got your number of 6000 years ago. Even if we take it to be Moses, the earliest dates place it around 1200 BC. Only if you consider it to be an oral tradition could you give it such an early date. --] (]) 15:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
::: You are quite right, Görlitz, my apologies. I was labouring under the delusional belief that you had written "scholarly consensus", i.e. what the scholarship agrees upon, is '''simply''' - simply, nice - '''one POV.''' ] (]) 16:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
:::: Ah, sarcasm. How quaint and perfectly dismissive. You continue to labour under the assumption that Misplaced Pages is based on scholarly consensus when it fact it ] ] on ] of which scholarly consensus makes up only a small portion. "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on '''reliable, published sources''', making sure that '''all majority and significant minority views''' that have appeared in those sources are covered (see ])." Please notice the emphasis on "significant minority views". There are many other things that Misplaced Pages is ] but I'll let you discover those things. --] (]) 17:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Good grief: "...] of which scholarly consensus makes up only a small portion...." You are actually doubling down on your remark? The sheer inanity of declaring that scholarly consensus represents simply one POV and a small portion of what should be considered reliably sourced information beggars belief and would have devastating consequences for any exercise that is about the promotion of knowledge. Is it really your view that encyclopedic treatment of a topic should consider scholarly consensus as simply a small portion of the overall "reliable" material that should be provided? If so, I fear the legitimacy and integrity of your participation in what is after all an exercise about disseminating knowledge can and should be rightfully called into serious doubt. ] (]) 17:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
−
::::::Are you able to elaborate on what the "significant minority views" are and provide reliable sources for them, just so we all know what we might be discussing? Thank you.] (]) 17:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::: @Eusebeus - Please drop your attitude. The inanity of your assumption that only scholarly consensus should be considered is the reason for my statement. Perhaps small portion is hyperbole and it should simply read "portion". I would even recast it a large portion of the discussion, but it's not the only opinion that should be discussed.
::::::: @ Theroadislong - You realize, of course, that that phrase is from ]. I'll leave it up to discussion, and some has been offered. However, to exclude anything that doesn't agree with scholarly consensus simply because it doesn't agree with it is ]. --] (]) 18:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Jimmy Wales says "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" It would be helpful to us all if you did otherwise we don't know what we are discussing? Kind regards] (]) 18:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::*Is it possible to spin these last comments off in to a new section so Mann Jess doesn't get lost, confused, or just completely disregard due to information overload and inanity my request for her input above, about the consensus for the change of wording in the note? Please refer to ], ], and ] in their entirety. The last half score comments have been the same thing, reworded, and the same objection, reworded. ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 18:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::The inglorious spectacle of two long-time Wikipedians having their little talk page tantrum throwing around elementary links and engaging in high-minded posturing would normally be grounds for nesting the exchange. but in this case, as ] has asked a pertinent question, then it might as well stay up to the mutual embarrassment no doubt of at least one, and maybe two editors who should have learned (along with what constitutes reliable sources and undue weight) better in 6 years. To answer your question, the note wording ("as used in britannica...") comes across to me (and probably me alone) as sounding amateurish, like the kind of thing one would find in a first year undergraduate essay, but not in an encyclopedia. ] (]) 19:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::It is the fanatical, inane, extremist POV positions of editors like Eusebeus and Theroadislong that causes so much problems on WP. ] (]) 19:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::: Eusebeus, if you feel you are ruing Misplaced Pages, and if you care about it, you should stop editing it. However, when you push one POV, you are ruining it. I'm not asking for any one opinion any more weight than it's due, but to simply exclude it because it doesn't meet the "scholarly" criterion is not appropriate. I'm sorry you don't see that. --] (]) 20:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}@John, things are already heated enough, and it seems we both agree that postulating on the number of Christians in the world and the number of refs they may have influenced doesn't help develop the article, or this note in particular. Let's just disagree on those points and concentrate on the note directly. It seems to me that everyone agrees that including a note using the def from ] is acceptable. A few editors seem to prefer adding additional wording to spell it out further - "this doesn't mean Genesis is false" - but that's garnered some objections. A few others, including me, prefer removing the note entirely, but that's garnered some objections. It seems that the note with the current wording (or a variation thereof) is the most agreeable solution to everyone. How about we keep that, and see how it fares? BTW, I agree with Eusebeus that the lead-in "...as used in Britannica..." is a bit much. Are we aware of any ''other'' definition for "creation myth"? If not, then simply defining it should be sufficient. I'd support trimming that, and maybe including a direct ref to Britannica instead. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 20:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
:BTW, if we have too many objections to this now, or in the future, an RfC for outside opinions might be helpful. It seems we have a broadly agreeable solution, so I think we can just stick with that and avoid one for now. All the best, — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 20:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
::I made a simple, polite request for user:Walter Görlitz to "elaborate on what the significant minority views are and provide reliable sources for them so we could all know what we might be discussing" and I have been attacked as being "fanatical, inane and extremist POV" I'm sorry but I really don't understand why? Can anyone explain please?] (]) 21:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
If you really think every scholarly POV should be included, may I remind you that Dawkins and others call the story in Genesis ''insane'' and ''for the feeble-mind morons'' or some such? ] <sup>]</sup> 22:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
:Dawkins isn't exactly a reliable or scholarly source when it comes to anything outside of biology, let alone philosophy and even more so Biblical exegesis: he has no qualifications in the field nor has he written anything beyond polemic (in keeping with the style of the so-called "New Atheists", all fluff and soundbytes for an age of soundbytes, unlike the Good Old Atheists like Bertrand Russell and Antony Flew, back in the 1960s at least). However, thank you for a colorful example that hopefully will break the cycle of back-and-forth here. ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 23:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
===Note is redundant, how about "Genesis creation narrative is a <nowiki>]</nowiki>"===
I think the current note is redundant and brings unnecessary attention to the issue. What the note states is all covered at the ] article, which is linked. There's no need for this overkill. I just noticed that the opening sentence at the creation myth article states: "A '''creation myth''' or '''creation story''' is...", so why not incorporate that here by expanding the link to include the term "story"? Thoughts? — ] (] | ]) 23:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
:Please, correct me if I'm wrong here. My understanding is that the words 'narrative' and 'story' aren't in the first sentence of the lede of ], and 'myth' is, is because 'narrative' and 'story' have a more similar meaning than 'narrative' and 'myth'. As 'narrative' is in the title of this article (which has, of course, been discussed), it is not necessary for 'narrative' to be repeated in the first sentence. Using the same reasoning, 'story' has been excluded from the first sentence of the lede. Now, in ], the word 'myth' '''is''' in the title and 'narrative' and 'story' aren't, so it makes sense to include one or the other in that article's lede. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 23:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
::As the current note states, the "myth" that is used in this article is meant to be the academic definition as defined in Encyclopedia Britannica and other sources, i.e. "a symbolic '''narrative''' of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it". So in the context of this article at least, "myth" is synonymous with "narrative" and/or "story". — ] (] | ]) 23:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Thank you, and I understand the point you're making. The discussions above (the discussions which resulted in a consensus to keep 'myth' in the lede) indicate a disagreement with that perspective, however, in that many editors clearly do not consider 'myth' and 'narrative' to be synonymous in the context of this article. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 00:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC) <small> edit - </small>(BTW, I agree with your first sentence. I also believe that the note is redundant and unnecessary.) ]<font color="green">]</font>] 01:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:::FoxCE, you bolded the wrong part. Let me fix it: "a '''symbolic narrative''' of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it". But then again this is a long tired argument. Even with the clear consensus of using "myth", those who want "narrative" don't give up.-- '''<span style="font-family:century gothic">] ]</span>''' 00:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:::: Not sure who is being referenced by "they don't give up", and to clarify that I have no problems with the use creation myth, but do understand how it could be misunderstood by those uninitiated in the academic use of the term. There are academicians who prefer the use narrative, my former OT prof being one. --] (]) 00:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Not referring to anyone in particular. Apologies if that sounded combative. And I do agree that the note is a bit unnecessary. Apologist even. It just doesn't sit well with me at all how Genesis is being given this special treatment in deference to some of the readers. It's perfectly obvious in past discussions that the real reason why some want this is because it's '''Christian'''. You don't see this kind of arguments in Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, or whatnot. It's a bit like the old practice of ], but in reverse.
:::::Don't worry though, I have no desire to jump into the same debate again.-- '''<span style="font-family:century gothic">] ]</span>''' 01:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::Agree with everyone above, the note is unnecessary. I've been saying that from the beginning, but few others spoke up, so I've been focusing on the wording instead. I think there are some pretty solid reasons why the note should be excluded altogether... and based on the number of voices here disagreeing with it, I think it makes sense to 1) remove it until we have consensus it should stay ''and'' have decided on wording, 2) if there are dissenting voices who want it in, hold an RfC to gather a broader opinion. Does that sound reasonable to everyone? — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 02:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::That works for me, and I still support my above "''<nowiki>]</nowiki>''" link change suggestion. — ] (] | ]) 02:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Concur with both Jess and Fox. Fox's suggestion seems to be the most efficient. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 02:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Fox, I think we don't even need to do that - after reading all this palaver, all of it an attempt by good editors to accommodate just one other editor, I've come to the conclusion that there's really no way to placate those for whom "myth" is an emotive trigger rather than an academic definition. See my new subthread below. ] (]) 03:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Good point, we should probably leave it as-is for the time being. Perhaps my suggestion can be harbored in the event that a significant number of users begin to demand a further compromise of some sort. — ] (] | ]) 03:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
{{od}} Too much to read through until at least the weekend, I would just note that with respect to "reliable", there are sources which are "reliable" scholarship and are preferred (books by recognized experts, peer reviewed papers, etc.), then there are sources which are equally "reliable" but only as to being acknowledged spokespersons for a particular viewpoint.<p>Scholarship is scholarship (within which there may be viewpoints), and viewpoints are viewpoints, but the viewpoint twain shall never meet. Apologies for stating the obvious. ]<small> ►]</small> 17:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
: @PiCo who wrote "there's really no way to placate those for whom 'myth' is an emotive trigger". I disagree completely. On the contrary, there is no way to placate those for whom "myth" is an intentional poke at those to whom the account is more than simply myth. What those of you who rely on "academic" credentials fail to understand is that it's offensive to many. While I full understand its use, it's underlying offence is greater than its academic credentials. It is hubris to continue to insist on its use in this context without expounding on its meaning or at least clarifying it. However I also understand that is article is patrolled by a small group of academics who don't think like humans and their POV will continue to be exerted here. --] (]) 18:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
::I'm sure it's been said, Walter, but wikipedia is ]. We just had a long and excruciating arbcom case about offense as it pertains to religious believers and that we're not censored was soundly upheld. Furthermore, if you take a look at ] you will see that mythology is specifically mentioned as an example of a term that has a certain scholarly meaning and "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." We seem to be following policy to the letter here and claiming offense is not going to justify the change, that's just not how WP works. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 22:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
::: Are you missing the "avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader" part?
::: If only the term used were mythology and not myth, a fine distinction, but that is territory for theologians, and this is a theological article. --] (]) 19:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::::You're taking that out of context again. ''Misplaced Pages articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader.'' The article uses the word in only a formal sense, to avoid causing unnecessary offense. It does '''not''' say "''Whatever you do, avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader.''" - ]] 19:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::Also, your quip that those who want myth in the article are intentionally trying to poke people is rude and uncalled for. Please keep your ] as to the motives of other editors to yourself - it's not appropriate here. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 22:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
::: It wasn't a quip, not an speculation, it was an observation and it was completely called-for.
::: Don't lecture me on assuming good faith unless you also lecture the comment to which I was responding which did the same thing in reverse. It's a huge double-standard that I've seen you and other editors impose on other editors here and you've got to stop being one-sided in your criticism.
::: The issue for me is not that the term is used, it's that no compromise can be reached to attempt to explain the it. So the fact still remains: those of you who are opposed to elaboration of the term are sticking their heads in the sand if you think that the vandalism and unconstructive edits will stop just because you think you're justified in your use of the bare term. The unconstructive edits won't stop and there will be debates like this until you realize that the position is unsustainable. It's easier to explain the term rather than force people to debate you here. Those unconstructive edits are just as much to blamed on those who hold to the term as it's currently used as those who actually make the edits. --] (]) 01:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::::I haven't been following this discussion much, so forgive me if this has already been said, but isn't explaining the term is exactly what ]s are for? - ]] 01:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::::: If it actually did what we all assume it should do, then we wouldn't have editors coming to this page and changing only that term. --] (]) 02:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::::: In short, it seems that there are editors here who are assuming that what's broken is other editors. That's not supported by the evidence. The other editors are not broken. The way that Misplaced Pages works is not broken--whether wikilinking or the ability for editors to edit (read: lock the article). What's broken is the way that phrase is being presented. --] (]) 02:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::The statement is presented in accordance with policy and that's what we're supposed to do. Secondly, people would change it without without a qualifier because people simply don't like seeing their religion treated as though it is the same as other religions. I've pointed out the relevant policies, sources have been well documented on this page supporting the use of the term, and that's all that really matters. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 02:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::: Policy? I doubt it. Guideline maybe. Agreement, most likely. If you want to keep your head in the sand, go ahead. You can wrap that around all the obfuscating discussion you want, but unless the phrase is changed or elaborated you will continue to have edits made to fix it. I have written that before and it was ignored. You may continue to ignore it, but at some point you're going to have to face the facts that the phrse needs to be changed. --] (]) 04:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::There is such a policy. ] (specifically ''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.'') - ]] 08:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::" Oh. That policy. The one that starts, "Misplaced Pages content should '''not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs'''" (emphasis mine). Right. We should get on that immediately. So far we only encompass an academic viewpoint. --] (]) 15:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, even out of context. The designation of ] in no way affects the rest of the article's ability to encompass what motivates individuals, and I would say that the third paragraph of the lede does indeed touch on the motivation of at least the reasoning for the narrative. If you feel that this is inadequate, you're more than welcome to ], but that's ultimately another subject entirely, unrelated to the fact that ] is backed by both reliable sources and Misplaced Pages policy. - ]] 16:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::: But it's the policy and it's completely in context. It's time we addressed encompassing what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs to meet the policy. Every attempt at fixing has been reverted by the cabal here. --] (]) 16:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::I don't necessarily disagree with that, because I'm honestly not sure to what you're referring (I haven't really read anything outside of this subsection/what I've directly responded to), but in regards to the topic of this section, the only thing I was addressing was the ] wikilink and the discussion about rewording it due to possible misunderstandings of the meaning. Outside of that, I have no comment or opinion, because I don't know is being referred to. I apologize if I gave the impression that I was referring to something else as well, my comments were about the wording of the link, nothing more. - ]] 16:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}There are certain things that are controversial, in which there is no wording that will satisfy everyone and solve all disagreements. Religious topics such as this are a prime example. Such articles will always have editors come along to try to reword the article to adhere to their point of view, not out of maliciousness, but of a desire to improve the article. I don't believe that people removing this because they disagree with it is indicative of an issue with the article, but rather that it is a religious subject. - ]] 05:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
: I have edited and watch several other "religious subjects" and none have this problem. --] (]) 05:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::Then you are fortunate. It is likely you haven't seen this problem because many religious articles have been indefinitely semi-protected to prevent perpetual edit-warring on controversial subjects. If you look at ], Religion has its own subsection under "Controversial subjects" (]), the only other one being "Pseudoscience and related fringe theories". - ]] 05:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::The use of the term ] fails to adhere to ] as it is clearly a POV spin, I have edited it out twice only to have it reverted, with the last editor stating that it is included after reaching editor consensus, however ] clearly indicates that this is inappropriate when it states
''"The principles upon which this policy (]) is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus"''.
:: I don't wish to get into an edit war over the subject, therefore, I expect that some cooler heads need to prevail over this matter and present the matter from both sides, stating what views are held by both parties rather than present the idea that creation is a myth as a factual statement. I invite additional comments on the matter. ] (]) 05:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Judging by the talk page, it is not "clearly" anything, and is certainly not "clearly POV". Creation myth has a definition, and this subject fits this definition and has been called such by numerous reliable sources. You're more than welcome to demonstrate why you feel it is in violation of NPOV, but I would ask that read ] beforehand. - ]] 05:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::: Fortune has nothing to do with it. I just don't see this sort of debate over things that are simple. I've explained why, but obviously, simplicity eludes certain editors.
:::: And speaking of simple, it's simply not a POV issue. The class of narrative is the creation myth. That's not POV. --] (]) 06:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Please comment on the content and not the contributors. - ]] 06:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::: For pity sake, the issue is the editors and not the content. Sorry if you don't comprehend that. --] (]) 07:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Disagreements are not cause for incivility, and "simplicity eludes certain editors" was not a constructive comment meant to improve this article. That I ''do'' comprehend. - ]] 07:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::: This is not a disagreement. It's blatant disregarding of facts as presented. Sorry if you feel otherwise. Feel free to report my actions. --] (]) 08:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent|::::::::}} I think is a good solution. Both sides are accommodated with the edit. --] (]) 22:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:It would seem that there are certain editors who are determined to see that only one side of the subject is represented here, which is in violation of ], perhaps arbitration of some sort is in order. ] (]) 00:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:: Agreed. --] (]) 00:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
===Summing up===
Here's a summary of positions from most recent editors:
THE NOTE IS NOT NEEDED:
*] - "the note is unnecessary"
*] - "the current note is redundant"
*] - "I do agree that the note is a bit unnecessary."
*] - "the note is redundant and unnecessary."
*] - "If we're going to have a note (and this is one thing I actually did propose first, and was argued out of seeing the necessity of it above)..." (John goes on to say he's happy with the ''wording'' of the note as it stands, but this is about the very ''existence'' of the note, and he says he's been argued out of that position) - agreed. A dose of learning cured me of my push for further definition. ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 18:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY STAND: (sorry guys, I couldn't find a pithy quote above)
*] - (seems to lean towards the "not needed" camp)
*]
*] - "the note wording ("as used in britannica...") comes across to me (and probably me alone) as sounding amateurish, like the kind of thing one would find in a first year undergraduate essay" (Eusebeus is against the current wording, but I can't see any comment on the note in general).
*]
To sum up, the only enthusiastic, unequivocal supporter of the existence of the note is Zenkai - the rest of us, even those who proposed and supported the note, have been lukewarm. '''The lack of real support indicates that it should be dropped.''' ] (]) 03:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:Bingo. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:: I would argue that clarification of "myth" is needed for those unfamiliar with its academic use. The note was a good option, but far from ideal. --] (]) 16:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Yes, a clarification of what is meant by "myth" is needed. A lot of people don't understand what "myth" means academically. A clarification is a necessity because the current wording confuses many readers. ] ] 16:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
:::: What we think is not important. Based on the edits made to the lede, I would argue one is necessary to avoid well-meaning edits that change the meaning. --] (]) 16:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::There is no need for a note, Misplaced Pages is a scholarly encyclopaedia and the ] article is perfectly clear on its meaning. We should assume a certain level of intelligence of our readers] (]) 17:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::: This has nothing to do with intelligence or a lack thereof, it has to do with semantics and that argument requires intelligence to understand. We either completely lock the article so no one can edit it or editors will "fix" the article to "correct" the myth statement. In the brief time that I've been watching the page, that one statement has caused at least six edit wars. Why are a few "academics" digging their heels in instead of correcting an obvious problem in the most simple way? --] (]) 17:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Because if we pandered to everyone and everything that someone somewhere might not understand, we'd need a shitload of notes. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Maybe a note isn't the best solution, but something has to be done to fix the lead. ] ] 18:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Soooo, any ideas? ] ] 00:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent|::::::::}} Yes. I think everyone is missing the obvious. If we don't explain it, the article will be "fixed" (read: vandalized) so that it makes sense. I fully understand what the term means. I disagree that this article should be for and by academics and we should write the article for everyone, not only academics. It's amazing that the other editors here don't understand that. So here's my idea: write to be understood by everyone, not only academic. --] (]) 00:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
:It's really not difficult to click a blue link and read the next article. I'd go as far as to say that's one of the greatest parts about the Wiki interface. It's not that we write for academics, it's that we're a scholarly encyclopedia and thus use academic terms. Consensus has been strong to keep "myth" and I doubt consensus to change this will form anytime soon. I'm not adverse to other changes in the lede but I think it's time to drop the "myth" debate as it's been hashed and rehashed on many occasions with the same conclusions. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 01:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
:: There's nothing there to clarify the issue though. Sorry. I explained that a long time ago and it may have been missed. It simply explains the various creation myths, not what the term means. --] (]) 01:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
:: Oh, and this isn't about the "myth" debate. It's about the article's vandalism because of the "myth" of academic use superseding common usage. --] (]) 01:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
:::My apologies for missing it. That, in and of itself is an issue. My proposed solution would be to write that into the ] article (why it wouldn't be there now is beyond me). Regarding the vandalism, this is just something we have to deal with on WP. I think if myth were not in the lede we would find people adding it just as consistently as people remove it. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 01:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Wait sorry I must be confused, the open to the article is "A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it." is that not clear enough or am I missing something here? ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 01:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
:::: It's definitely not clear enough. --] (]) 01:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::I disagree but am not adverse to clarification if you think it's necessary. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 01:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::I agree with Noformation that it's clear. As I've said before, we get vandalism to change clear wording based on a common POV all the time, all over wikipedia. It's simply a part of editing an open encyclopedia. Check the archives for ]; their definition has been debated over and over again, so many times I no longer check the page. See the talk page for ]; their use of images has been debated so many times they have a separate talk page just for that. We don't make changes to our articles due to vandalism. We make changes to our article when good sources are presented which conflict with our current wording. No such sources or arguments have been presented, so the wording need not be changed. If you have a proposal based on our current sources, please present it. Abstract notions that "the article should be changed so we won't have as much vandalism" are spurious. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 02:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::: OK it's clear. Feel free to remove all future "corrections" to that section. --] (]) 02:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
== Why is wikipedia endorsing pov sources as undisputed fact? Arbitration is badly needed here ==
Why must certain editors here continually force wikipedia to endorse POV sources as if they were undisputed, unassailabe fact that nobody disagrees with? This is yet another example of intellectual dishonesty in this article. There needs to be a major arbitration on this article, because significant viewpoints as usual are being brushed aside as if some new information had supposedly come up settling the controversy, which it most certainly has not. Numerous editors coming here immediately notice that the article is a '''one sided''' propaganda vehicle and that it teaches a certain point of view as uncontroversial doctrine, but a small team of editors who proudly self identify themselves as atheist, routinely band together and drive all of the impartial editors out. I will fully support any moves made by anyone toward long needed arbitration of this article. ] (]) 00:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
:Please provide specific examples so that we may go over them one by one. It doesn't really help anyone to make a generalized complaint like this. Also, I don't think it's the arbitration committee's job to address issues like this.] (]) 00:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
::Correct, Arbcom has no control over content or policy, they are enforcers of policy only in regards to editor behavior. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 00:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
:Please comment on content and not on contributors. If something in the article is actually wrong then it does no service to your point to attempt to group editors into atheist vs. theist or any other system. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 00:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I have also seen these same editors who '''self identify''' as atheist, more times than I care to recount, immediately label any arriving editor or even any published theologian who disagrees with their atheology, as "creationist" or worse, when they '''don't''' even self identify as such. They are the ones who group themselves, group others, this is just another case of being able to dish it out but not being able to take it in the least. Their circular reasoning litmus test for whether a source is reliable (i e if it holds the same point of view they accept) is unacceptable and making a mockery of calling this a "neutral" encyclopedia. That's why much more light desperately needs to be thrown on this backwards article, so that it doesn't just purport to "explain" theological matters from the POV of ONE side of the controversy, but rather ALL the sides without "playing favorites" as it does. ] (]) 13:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
:: The word "arbitration" (in English) is also a synonym for any sort of mediation process in general. ] (]) 00:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
::: Perhaps, but we have specific uses of many terms here. You might be thinking of ], but that would be a step to come only if discussion here cannot find consensus. There is also a mediation system, but no committee or set of users has anymore authority than any other, everything is done by ] here. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 00:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
:::You might consider reviewing the options here (]), but it would help to outline your specific concerns before doing so. — ] (] | ]) 00:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
:Being that vague and nonspecific is about as useful as having said nothing at all. This is nothing more than a rant; a venting of your frustrations. Outline your specific complaints, and we can go from there. — ] (] | ]) 00:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Agree with Fox, and the allcaps don't help much either. ] (]) 00:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
:Are you seriously characterizing the actual adherents of a religion in question as "impartial"? If they were we'd have various religious articles here vying with each other claiming each and every one of them is true. We ''do not count the number of adherents'' to satisfy ], we wouldn't be much of an encyclopedia then, would we? We count the ''number of reliable sources''. That's what prominence and notability means. Creationism has zero reliable sources that treat it as fact and thus must never be presented as such, though it can be treated in a scholarly and historical context.
:A million believers still can not compare in terms of reliability to a single repeatable scientific experiment that refutes their conclusions. That is the most basic thing about NPOV. What you see as inequality is simply due weight.-- <small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small> 02:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
::This is exactly the article we would expect to see if it were controlled by one of those regimes around the world that has a militant '''POLITICAL''' agenda to eliminate Biblical beliefs from the face of the Earth. What ever happened to NEUTRALITY? This article's "neutrality" is a CROCK, whom are you kidding? You don't get to declare that only YOUR school of thought on theology is determined correct and therefore every other source is "undue weight" no matter how many support it! ] (]) 13:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Misplaced Pages is a mainstream encyclopedia and so follows how mainstream science and history characterizes the topic based on the use of reliable sources. In this discussion you have presented zero reliable, secondary, independent sources. Neutrality does not mean that wikipedia must pretend that two different views have equal weight. Instead we aim to represent views fairly and proportionately ]. A quote from ]: ''To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea.''. ] (]) 13:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
::::I don't think this thread is conducive to improving the article in any way and it's starting to border on vitriol. I suggest archiving this thread and moving on people. Cheers, ] (]) 13:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Til, I am a very devout Christian and I believe the article is fine the way it is. Actually, I think it should use the word myth instead of narrative, to reflect the style of other articles on other religions' creation stories. It was religious people who campaigned and generally behaved exactly as you describe militant atheists behaving to get myth changed to narrative even though the proper definition of a myth does NOT mean untrue.
:::The point being that I, being a Christian, certainly don't want to eliminate biblical beliefs from the face of the Earth. As I asked above - please provide a specific example for improvement. We can't do anything with generalized accusations. Pick one issue, present it here, we'll go over it, and when we've come to an agreement on what to do with it, present another issue, and so on.] (]) 13:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Farsight ''does'' have a point as far as specification goes. However, I would like to ask a series of questions that all of us editors might be able to ask ourselves in the process of bettering this encyclopedia: Are the views of the authorities we appeal to accepted by a significant amount of experts in relative fields? Do the collective bearings of these authorities (esp. "majority authority") nullify or completely counter other views? Are the other views supported by a significant amount of credible, relative experts -- and what percentage of the field should they take up to be deemed significant enough to be considered with both critical and sympathetic ("neutral") points of view? On that point, how does the majority consensus bear on which one of these points of view should overweigh the other -- if any? Where is the boundary between powerful ("absolute") authority and significant speculation? How should we treat the "why" they arrived at their consensus? And most importantly, what is Misplaced Pages intended to be? <i style="text-shadow:lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</i><i style="text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</i> 13:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Article talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve the article ] ] (]) 14:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::If one wishes to improve the article, they must first improve themselves. I intended the above paragraph as a sort of, 'think about this before taking the discussion any further, then discuss'. <i style="text-shadow:lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</i><i style="text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</i> 14:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
Wait until I'm done with my full rewrite and see how it is accepted. I believe it will still be too "atheistic" or liberal for the more die-hard Christians/Jews here, but I am attempting to expand and balance it a great deal (which is no easy task, trying to write and then passing it under my own scrutiny while alternating the Christian and Atheist glasses - I suppose I know how Chamberlain must have felt). I mainly began the rewrite with some attempt at balancing and removing some unreliable sources (i.e. Ellen Gould White), but much more so to improve the absolutely terrible lack of perspicuity and bad prose in the article as is - stylistic concerns, as it reads now (and I challenge anyone to disagree) as the result of the worst kind of design by committee. I will almost certainly be spinning off at least one other article, "Genesis in Christian Theology" (as I'm at 149k with refs, and I haven't finished referencing some statements - much of my style when writing is to write out of my knowledge, so it is well written in good prose, and then go back and reference my own work, finding the sources for that knowledge, and deleting that which I can't reference, and so on), which will deal with the religious aspects of the Genesis creation narrative, and, if space permits, the entire first eleven chapters and twenty-six verses of Genesis, commonly marked the "primordial history" in exegesis (but, beware, that all of the people quoted in the lead are believing Christian theologians, not Spongites, so if it's too "biased" for you, "Genesis in Christian Theology" probably will be too). ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 23:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
:This project has also made me consider writing some other articles (if you look at my edits, I'm mainly a copy editor), dealing with " in Theology", such as "Gospel according to John in Christian Theology", "Apocalypse of John in Christian Theology", "Qur'an in Islamic Theology", etc. - something I am surprised Misplaced Pages doesn't already have, and which most definitely is distinct from the parent articles, and is not a POV-fork, as the topic of a certain book in a certain context is completely different from a description of the book itself: much like "Nineteen eighty-four", "Impact/Influence of GO's 1984", and "Literary criticism of GO's 1984" are, for example. ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>;;]</sub> 23:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
::Your division of this article into Christian/atheistic viewpoints and sole reliance of ''"believing Christian theologians"'' in the lead is disturbing. This article should be an ''academic'' summary of the Genesis creation myth and so such divisions or facts should be irrelevant to the construction of this article.
::Now, obviously this creation myth is important to Christian theology, and one of the many subsets of academia that is relevant to this article is theology, so this article can and should discuss this myth with respect to Christian theology. However, Christian theology is only one of many slices of pie that we need to fit into this pie tin and so we are forced to write in a summary style. This article's discussion of this creation myth with respect to Christian theology can lead into a larger ] article where that discussion can be fleshed out even further. That is, there is nothing wrong with a ] article ''per se'' but it must not become a contrast of this article (a POV-fork), but an expansion of material that is summarised in this article and others (notably the ] article itself). ] (]) 03:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::*No, I am merely pointing out for all of those that accuse the article of liberal/atheist "bias so strong that it makes 'The Nation' look conservative", that all of the sources used in the lead are by believing Christians or Jews (that is, the article isn't using atheistic sources to further some sort of atheistic conspiracy to vanish Biblical beliefs from the face of the planet, as alluded to above). It just so happens that all (or almost all) of the academic sources, whatever their viewpoint, dealing with the Genesis creation narrative (or any other book of the Bible, for that matter) tend to be written by religious people, who are the undisputed masters of the field (for Genesis: Wenham, Sarna, Brueggemann, Walton, von Rad, etc.). ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 07:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
== Believes/notes ==
I made , which was then reverted again, so I wanted to come here and discuss it. The source given does not state that Sarna "believes" it, and a belief is not the same as a statement, so is not correct, because it turns into speculation about what is believed, rather than what is stated. - ]] 02:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:I see your point. Would "says" be better? ] ] 02:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
== Nahum Sarna ==
He "notes" that the Israelites borrowed themes from the Mesopotamians? How would he know? Was he there?
It would be far more accurate if "notes" was changed to "believes" or "considers'. Thank you. ] ] 02:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:How would you know that he "believes" it? See above, thank you. - ]] 02:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::But "note" implies that it is a fact. Which it is not. ] ] 02:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Close. "Note" implies that ''they'' consider it a fact, not that it ''is'' one. - ]] 02:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Agree with SudoGhost here. "Notes" does not imply absolute factuality. ] (]) 02:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::In this context it's presented as if it were a fact. ] ] 02:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::Read the section yet again, and to me it's presented as if it is academic consensus. ] (]) 02:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::It doesn't read that way. ] ] 02:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, academic consensus is fact. If there are notable fringe views to the contrary of the academic consensus, then these can be discussed in the article but must be discussed very carefully in order to avoid giving them undue weight. The relegation of intelligent design and creationism to the ] is a good example of how to do this. ] (]) 02:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Sarna does ''not'' represent the academic consensus. That's beside my point anyway. ] ] 02:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
], you seem to have difficulty in understanding that '''you can't close a discussion just because you don't like it'''. ] ] 02:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:But he can close it when discussion is pointless because ]. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 03:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::Well, you don't, but others do. You and seb always seem to gang up on me. ] ] 03:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::No where in this thread is a statement expressing agreement with your position so no, other do not. Once again you are pushing a POV because you don't like that your religion is not given special treatment here, it's nothing new and what you call "ganging up" is simply the response you get when you try to undermine an article because you don't like it. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 03:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::::You and seb always push your POVs, along with others. You just don't like that someone can have different views than yours. ] ] 03:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::::My POV is the scholarly POV so pushing it is akin to NPOV. I don't edit articles that deal with a topic with which I don't share the expert view. There is a really good reason to follow that line of thinking. When you're involved you can't think clearly. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 04:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::I will politely disagree. Your POV is definitely ''not'' NPOV(or anything close to it). ] ] 05:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:Ok, back on topic. Do you think "says" is better than "believes" or "considers"? ] ] 03:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::The horse is dead, Zenkai. Let it go. ] (]) 03:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::My proposal is actually quite good and reasonable. We will wait until others join the discussion. ] ] 03:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::::For the record: I think ''notes'' is the most appropriate word. ] (]) 03:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::That makes it four or five to one. Plenty of others have joined. Leave the poor horse be. ] (]) 03:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::But no one has put up a good argument as to why "notes" should stay, or why "says" or "considers" aren't good enough. ] ] 05:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::See ], notably ]. Yes, we can leave this discussion open for further input, but it would be obtuse to assume consensus had not already formed. ], but pushing this against standing consensus in the meantime is disruptive. 'Notes' represents the academic consensus where 'believes' does not; 'notes' is fine. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 05:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I took Sarna out altogether. That Genesis 1-11 uses Babylonian (and other) mythological texts as its basis is a commonplace of biblical criticism, and I know of no-one who disagrees or suggests otherwise. To suggest that this is a new or limited idea is simply misleading. If you doubt me, I can quote a dozen passages from our bibliography alone, including major college-level works. ] (]) 06:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:I agree with Pico. Attributing this to one scholar is amateurish since it is commonly understood and textbook level stuff. ] (]) 07:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:: It seems to have been restored.
:: The question is do you need a phrase that reads:
::: "] writes that the ] borrowed some ] themes but adapted them to ] as expressed by the '']''"
:: and then add a reference to Sarna? It makes much more sense to have:
::: "The ] borrowed some ] themes but adapted them to ] as expressed by the '']''"
:: since it's obvious that it's Sarna's idea by the reference that follows it. It's also appropriate in this case to add multiple references to support the idea.
:: This article does this multiple times and it's not necessary to have the "bookends". --] (]) 07:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I'm okay with the shorter version without Sarna. Walter is correct that it should be apparent from the ref, and per policy we shouldn't be reducing the academic consensus down to a single opinion via unnecessary attribution. It seems that's the forming consensus here, so I've restored it for now. Thanks. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 08:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Also have nthing against the shorter version without Sarna. No need to "double cite", and his statement concurs with scholarly consensus. ] (]) 09:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
I attempted to solve the problem by "Sarna writes...and several other exegetes", but was reverted because the second clause was not sourced (I didn't believe it to be a contentious statement). The original phrasing was more than acceptable as well ("Sarna notes": to whoever started this argument, "If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it" - or it'll get broke worser). I support a plain reversion to the pre-contention statement, "Sarna notes" (I also support strengthening the statement with something such as, "along with most other exegetes", or, "representing the majority of scholars", or in some way someone else comes up with) which, as noted (no pun) implies majority consensus/academic consensus, without attributing to it a weight of logical fact that isn't present? I don't believe a bare statement of fact is correct in this situation, or, a bare statement of fact stated as forcefully as it is (maybe a rewording without attributing Sarna could give it appropriate weight without making it read as if it was a mathematical fact). ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 00:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:I can't speak for others, but it seems to me the current (bare) wording is ideal. This wording represents the broad academic consensus, where attribution to a single source (or related group) does not. Per policy, we must "]". I think what we'd need is not a source supporting "several other exegates" who agree, but a source backing up a prominent view to the contrary. If there is really controversy about this in the academic community, I would support clarification in the text, but without it, I'm not sure clarification is appropriate. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 00:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
== The status quo is imposed ==
It's not consensus as can be seen from the number of edits. Please attempt to fix the lede. Before anyone questions whether it needs to be fixed, look at the edit history and count the number of times it's been edited in the past four weeks. If it was actually working, it wouldn't be the primary change. --] (]) 23:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:Consensus is not a ], it's a discussion. One person with a reasoned argument beats 99 opinionated reverts 100% of the time. Consensus is achieved by reasoning how an edit helps the encyclopedia while adhering to policy. I provided you with the relevant policy here (] and ]). I don't think clarification is needed because this is an encyclopedia and is thus expected to use academic terms; that there is a subset of users that don't understand the academic terms is irrelevant ''per policy''. If you don't think the ] article is specific enough then by all means, head over there and try to make it better. But I don't think we need to clutter up the lead with unnecessary language. A wikilink is sufficient and is a pretty damn efficient system. Lastly, ] is the norm here. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 23:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:: No one is asking for a democracy (and it's certainly not being offered) however ] clearly states: "Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. ] and ''']''. Misplaced Pages 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." (emphasis mine). So were is the effort to "unnecessary offense or misleading the reader"? I don't see it. FIX IT NOW! (shouting intended because it seems the cabal isn't listening). There have been several efforts to correct this oversight and a few editors have opposed it. The next step is to take it to the NPOV discussion. --] (]) 23:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:: And so despite what you think ("I don't think clarification is needed") you're not following the policy. --] (]) 23:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::We are following that policy ''to the letter''. The sentence says to use those words only in their formal sense - this is what we're doing. It doesn't say that we have to go out of our way to explain that they are being used in a formal sense, it just says to use the formal sense. To violate this policy we would have to use "myth" in the non-formal sense. Attempts to correct this "oversight" have failed because they don't adhere to policy - this has been discussed many, many times. Thus far your arguments have come down to the fact that the term offends people and that a lot of people would like it to change - those are not arguments that carry weight here. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 23:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::: No we are not following it to the letter as the current wording is causing "unnecessary offense or misleading the reader" and that is what is to be avoided. So try again and reformulate the lede to adhere to the policy. --] (]) 00:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Walter I'm sorry but you are misreading the policy. If we were to convert the sentence into logical form it would be stated as
::::# Certain words have specific meanings in certain contexts
::::# Some of those words when misinterpreted may be offensive
::::# Therefore we must only use those words in a formal context
:::::There is nothing in that policy to indicate that we don't use words that cause offense, only that when we use certain words we must use them in a formal context. You are seeing a premise that isn't there, namely that we should always avoid offending people (or something akin to this). And again, I point you to ] for maybe the 4th time now: "However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content."
:::::What you are asking for is not in line with policy. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 00:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::: You're imposing your POV on the policy. Feel free to read it again. I am not misreading it at all. --] (]) 00:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Simply saying it doesn't make it true, Walter. I gave you a logical breakdown of the policy and your response was to accuse me of pushing my POV rather than actually commenting on what I wrote. If you disagree with me you can say why without talking about me, if you're unable to do this then there's no point in continuing the discussion. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 00:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Just because the Genesis myth is the most currently popular one of the bunch doesn't mean it gets preferential treatment. All other ] outline them as ''being just that'' in the introduction, or even as part of the title itself. I still think the title here should be ], but due to much backlash from adherents of the Abrahamic religions we've made a stable compromise. But the contrived changes that are currently being offered just go too far in weaseling around what is said without controversy elsewhere — that these stories are called creation myths. You don't see any push to move the ] article to "]", so why the controversy here? Myth is the academic term. — ] (] | ]) 23:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
: Preferential treatment is not being requested. Following ] is. If offense isn't intended, they why do the cabal of "academic editors" (as I call them) become so enraged when a compromise is attempted to be reached and it pushed myth out of the limelight? I don't object to the use of the term, but clarification is needed. --] (]) 00:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:: @FoxCE, to be fair, the current title wasn't a result of a "backlash from adherents". IIRC, it was an application of ]. I happen to think it's the wrong title, but the arguments were based on policy, and non-religious editors weighed in to give support.
:: @Walter, I agree with Noformation. Your arguments have been discussed and rejected a long time ago... even before you entered the discussion, in fact. There is longstanding consensus for this wording, and you've thus far failed to sway consensus for a change. We've all been there before - no big deal - but continuing to harp on it without presenting anything new is ] behavior, which falls squarely under ]. Please ]. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 00:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::I'm not sure why you think anyone here is enraged; I certainly am not and I don't see any behavior that would indicate any sort of angry emotional state. Nor would that mean that offense must be intended even if it were true. An editor could surely be upset with his work being undone whether he was attempting to offend people or not. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 00:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::: The point that is being missed is not being missed by me Mann_jess, but by those who claim to have consensus on this issue. Quite simply, and I've stated this many times before, if it were truly neutral and had achieved the consensus of all editors it wouldn't be the target of so many editors. So stop Wikilawering and fix the phrase. --] (]) 00:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::::I have already addressed this. That people don't like it has ''nothing'' to do with consensus. Consensus is a discussion of how best o apply policy - that people don't like the wording and attempt to change it on a regular basis does not contribute to consensus. People didn't like depictions of Muhammad in the ] article and constantly removed them until the page was indef semi-protected. Then a few established editors tried to get images removed and it went to arbcom. As I already told you, in that case NOTCENSORED was once again upheld and the editor that lead the charge against images was banned for a year. I'm sorry but your position is not in line with community norms here. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 00:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Also please note that "neutral" does '''not''' mean unbiased or not offensive - neutral means presenting sources according to their prominence. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 00:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::::: You may ''think'' you've addressed it, but since I have made a point which you're not addressing, you haven't. This isn't about liking the lede , it's about accommodation of both POV as per ], vis: "avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader". --] (]) 00:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::You're just being vague now and not responding to anything I'm actually writing. If you present something new I'll discuss it but I will not waste anymore time repeating what I've already said. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 00:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::: Not at all. You just don't have a clue as to the actual problem. Sorry you don't understand. I've done my best to explain but your POV clouds my comments. I trust that the RfC that is about to start will help clear things up for you. --] (]) 15:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::The context of your quoted information is important. There was relevant text both before and after your quote. ''Misplaced Pages 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.''
:::::::::], as used in the article, is done so through its formal meaning, which is reflected by the fact that it is a wikilink which takes readers to the appropriate article, explaining the exact meaning meant. The lede therefore fulfills ] by using the formal meaning of creation myth to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. This is what ] says. It does not say "accommodation of both POV to avoid causing unnecessary offense..." but rather "Formal meaning to avoid causing unnecessary offense..." - ]] 15:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The '''only''' reason to object to a clarification in the text of the article is a desire to portray the story in Genesis as fictional. We all know that the academic sense of "myth" has a meaning which is clearly at odds with the way the word is understood by the average reader. The common understanding of the word is a fictional narrative. The academic use is different.
There are editors (and ] isn't meant to make us shut our minds to the reality of the situation) who want to use the word myth ''precisely'' because the average reader will read it as defining the Genesis narrative as fiction. There are other editors who want to avoid the use of the word "myth" at all costs, because they don't want any hint given to the average user that Genesis may not be literally true.
<blockquote>
The '''Genesis creation narrative''' is the story of the creation of the world as described in the first two chapters of the ], the first book of the ] (the ] of the ]). It is a ], in the academic sense of the term.
</blockquote>
] reverted the edit with the comment "We're an encyclopedia and thus expected to be academic, we don't need to state that, it's just sloppy". That's an outrageous and almost humorous rationale for reverting an edit which clarifies the usage of the word and makes the entire conflict unnecessary.
] reverted it with the comment "rv - contrived and biased sentence... allow the reader to visit the linked creation myth article to further their understanding of the term". It is certainly contrived, but not in any way that reduces the simple readability of the sentence. Nor is it biased in any way. And the idea that a user should have to click through in order to see a definition of a term that has a very well known common meaning is beyond outrageous. This is a patent attempt to obscure things, and to make the article ''more'' biased, rather than less.
] reverted the edit again, accusing ] of edit warring for restoring the edit twice. Why is that edit warring any more than Noformation's two reverts?
Given the incessant wars over the word "myth" in this article, I'm going to start an immediate RfC on the question of this edit. Misplaced Pages should be clear to the average reader, and attempts to muddy the waters will not stand. - ] (] - ]) 15:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
== Edit protect request 23 February 2012 ==
{{edit protect|answered=yes}}
* Please change <code><nowiki>{{Sc|L|ORD}}</nowiki></code> with plain text <code><nowiki>LORD</nowiki></code> (note: case sensitive; 5 occurences)
* Please change <code><nowiki>{{Sc|L|ord}}</nowiki></code> with plain text <code><nowiki>Lord</nowiki></code> (note: case sensitive; 7 occurences)
*'''Reason''': The template {{tlx|sc}} used these ways does exactly ''nothing''. It produces the outcome as proposed in the next code. This is even the case for side effects regarding {{tlx|smallcaps}}, like when non-CSS reading (mobiles) and copy-pasting text to a different editor (no lowercase/uppercase change happening before or after).
* '''Test''':
**Old <code><nowiki>{{Sc|L|ORD}}</nowiki></code> → {{Sc|L|ORD}} (equals new <code><nowiki>LORD</nowiki></code> → LORD)
**Old <code><nowiki>{{Sc|L|ord}}</nowiki></code> → {{Sc|L|ord}} (equals new <code><nowiki>Lord</nowiki></code> → Lord)
* '''Non-controversial?''' Indeed. ''This is a technical change, the resulting page is not altered''. The template is used idle. It definitely refrains from proposing changes to the text (It does not alter the casing).
* '''Background''': template {{tlx|sc}} is to be merged into {{tlx|smallcaps}}, per this ]. Removing these idle usages here makes the merge possible (to be specific for this page: do not use the second argument. Since the usage is idle, we can throw the template away alltogether). -] (]) 10:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
* I advise that this be declined. The problem is not with the content of the article, it's the editors who refuse to see that there are problems with the lede. It's a content dispute. --] (]) 15:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::??? As I said: this edit is not about content or the dispute. Content will not change. The dispute is not about this edit. I am not in the dispute. -] (]) 15:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you replace instances of {{tlx|sc}} with {{tlx|smallcaps}}, as that output is what's intended? Also, I made a change to sc to properly use smallcaps. — ] (]) 19:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Because {{tlx|sc}} is sitting in between without doing anything. Idle. "LORD" produces "LORD". So we kick the middle {{tlx|sc}} out and have the same page. And: I want {{tlx|sc}} out because it is a to-be-merged template. It is will be deleted or neutralised. All this I wrote in "Reason" and "Background" above. And "Test" says: text "LORD" will be "LORD". I'd say: stop worrying, start helping. -] (]) 22:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::Oh, and to be clear: ''there is no smalcaps involved''. Not before, not after. If you want something '''for smallcaps, start another proposal talk afer this edit'''. -] (]) 22:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::If by "smallcaps" you mean the template, no, but it did use the smallcaps font-variant. Anyway, it's changes to {{tlx|sc}} that produced the plain text so fixing that error (by replacing it with the template that superseded it) fixes your complaint about {{tlx|sc}} being idle also. This can all be handled in one edit instead of two for simplicity's sake. — ] (]) 22:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::'''No'''. Please go away. ''If you mean'': No, no ifs. The test is clear. LORD=LORD. -] (]) 23:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::::If all you care about is that {{tlx|sc}} isn't changing the text, then why did you a change to the template that fixed it? In cases of merging a template, as was decided ], you don't simply remove the deprecated template, you replace it with the new one. I don't see any reason why you would vehemently oppose fixing the underlying problems instead of myopically pursuing the removal of a malfunctioning template, while at the same time preventing it from being fixed. — ] (]) 00:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::As far as it has to do with the proposed edit: explained in my first post here. The rest is not relevant here. Then, what is your remaining issue with my request? -] (]) 02:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::Doing a quick find on the page for <code><nowiki>{{Sc|L|ORD}}</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>{{Sc|L|ord}}</nowiki></code>, nothing came up. In any case, it seems that this issue is controversial so I'll close the request. The page will be unprotected later today for any edits required. ] ] 07:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Are all the instances in passages where we have direct quotes from bible verses? If so, it should follow whatever bible edition we're using - it's a quote, after all. ] (]) 03:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:I introduced the SC changes. Small caps must be used, because all Bible translations based on the Masoretic text (and that's all except for the NETS, OSB, Brenton, and Douay-Rheims), use small caps, as it is a circumlocution for "YHWH" in the Hebrew text. If the template needs to be changed, so be it, but the small caps on the word itself in quotations '''''must be retained''''' in accordance with quoting policy. ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 03:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
== RfC: Should the lede define the narrative as a "myth, in the academic sense"? ==
{{rfc|hist|reli|rfcid=B0D19AD}}
The fighting over the use of the word "myth" with regards to the first two chapters of Genesis has raged on now for years. The main issue is that the word has a very well known common usage (a fictional tale) and a lesser known but widely used academic meaning ("A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it").
There are editors who are adamant that the word "myth" not be used at all in this context, lest Misplaced Pages be seen as supporting the view that the first two chapters of Genesis are fictional.
There are editors who are adamant that the word "myth" be the primary descriptor of the first two chapters of Genesis, often for the opposite reason: so that the casual reader will understand those chapters as being non-historical.
Neither side will ''ever'' back down, and I think we're all aware of that. But the conflict itself is predicated on an overly terse use of the word. Why leave things vague? Misplaced Pages is not meant to adopt either of the above views, which are both in violation of ]. Nor is it intended to "hint" at one point of view or another. And the conflict is easily solved by making it clear that the Genesis creation narrative ''is'' a creation myth, but that it's a creation myth in the academic sense of the word. Hence the change from this:
<blockquote>
The '''Genesis creation narrative''' is the ] contained in the first two chapters of the ], the first book of the ] (the ] of the ]).
</blockquote>
to this:
<blockquote>
The '''Genesis creation narrative''' is the story of the creation of the world as described in the first two chapters of the ], the first book of the ] (the ] of the ]). It is a ], in the academic sense of the term.
</blockquote>
This RfC is solely on the question of this edit. Please comment in the "threaded discussion" space below. - ] (] - ]) 16:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
===Threaded discussion===
*'''Comment''' - Although this does not directly pertain to the edit in question, I wanted to clarify something you stated: the use of myth is not a violation of ], but is in fact supported by said policy, which has an entire section, ], that directly deals with this. That "myth" not be used at all is a violation of said policy. However, I don't say that with prejudice either for or against the edit in question, but just to clarify that the removal of myth is not a policy-supported option. The ''clarification'' that usage of this word is used in the formal sense, however, I think is a valid discussion. - ]] 16:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I think your NPOV comment is misguided, but at least your intentions seem correct, and I have a more eloquent suggestion (phrases like "in the academic sense of the term" seem stylistically odd - consider a similar phrase in scientific articles that use the term "theory").
:Ideally the article title would be something like ] which would allow us to expand the precise definition of the term ''creation myth'' in the very first sentence, for example:
::''The '''Genesis creation myth''' is the symbolic ] found in the first two chapters of the ] that describes how the world was created.''
:This simultaneously deals with both sides of this tug-of-war: it clarifies exactly what we mean by ''creation myth'' (so as not to confuse readers, or impress upon readers that it is a fictional account which literalists may find offensive) without them having to click another link to find out, and still correctly uses academic terminology. As an added bonus, the article title would be consistent with our articles on other creation myths. ] (]) 16:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Your revision looks great 114.78.5.201. I might suggest the removal of the word "symbolic" since many take the narrative to be a literal one. I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 18:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::::I have to also '''agree''' with 114.78.5.201's suggestion, minus the "symbolic" term. — ] (] | ]) 23:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Concur, the irony being that this page used to be called Genesis Creation Myth and iirc that was really close to the opening sentence. I like this phrasing and think that the page itself should be moved to ] with this new wording. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 23:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::I like this suggestion, with the exception that it doesn't include a link to ]. I'm not sure if that's ok or not. On one hand, we'd be including ''creation myth'' in the title, and thus providing a proper definition of the subject. On the other hand, the lack of a wikilink may be less helpful to readers unfamiliar with the term. It seems appropriate to mention and link ] within the body... could we, perhaps, also do this when mentioning the relationship to Mesopotamian creation myths? Then, we would have a concise definition in sentence 1, and a wikilink for readers shortly after. Would that be acceptable for everyone? — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::To be clear, I'm okay with this proposal if it's acceptable to everyone. I think we can do better, but if this is the most agreeable solution, that's ok. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 00:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::I had simply assumed that the bolded "creation myth" text would be linked to its respective article, which is what I support doing as well. — ] (] | ]) 00:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm guessing the lack of wikilink was an oversight, the IP can correct me if I'm wrong. If there are no objections to this in 24 hours I'm going to be ] and make the move and the changes. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 01:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Actually I won't be able to make the move. The page already exists as a ] and so an admin would have to do it. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 02:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}
*'''Comment'''-I am totally against placing the POV spin phrase of ''creation myth'' into the title of the article, color it any way you want, it is still POV spin directing the reader to the viewpoint that the Genesis creation account is a false tale, but to include it in the title simply moves the POV spin into the title of the article as well as the body, compounding the problem. I think the view of both sides needs to be expressed, anything less is in violation of ] and the title of the article is no different than the body in the consideration of this. The original suggested edit is likely the closest we will ever get to adhering to this policy. ] (]) 04:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
:Unless ''all'' articles about creation myths are treated in the same way, it is ''not'' neutral to assign special treatment to ''this'' article in particular. The scholarly consensus is that the events as recorded in the Genesis creation myth ''did not happen''.--] (]) 04:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::It's the POV of the reliable sources and that's really the only thing that matters. NPOV doesn't mean that WP doesn't present ''any'' POV, it means that editors can't present ''their'' POV. "N" doesn't mean "non" and "neutral" doesn't mean "unbiased." As far as I am aware, the absolutely majority of scholarly sources (which are what count, not some dude who lives in Alabama with no theological qualifications) characterize Genesis as a creation myth, so right now the article is an NPOV violation because it caters to reader offense rather than scholarly treatment. <s>I seriously doubt anyone in academia actually believes that a snake ''literally'' talked, that's a very fringe view. </s> I seriously doubt that the view that a snake ''literally'' talked is taken seriously in any academic circles (my statement was too strong, rewording). ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 05:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I agree with ] on most points. I think "myth" is probably a ] in the sense that it lacks precision and may introduce bias, and I'd support using a synonym of some sort. I think Lisa's on the right track, though I like the IP's suggestion better (for the reasons he/she gave). Another possible alternative might be:
::The '''Genesis creation narrative''' is the ] contained in the first two chapters of the ], the first book of the ] (the ] of the ]).
:This way, ''story,'' ''account,'' ''narrative,'' or some other synonym can be pipe-linked to the ] article, without implying a bias to someone who doesn't know the academic definition of ''myth''. As a side note, I think the term "creation myth" should definitely be used later on in the article (as it is) but it's probably not quite right for the first sentence. Hope this helps. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.5pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 17:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::Mythology is one of the two examples given in the policy ]: 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. - ]] 19:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Thanks, I agree with you, though I would still argue that the word ''myth'' needs to be used carefully so as not to mislead a reader who might not know the formal meaning. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.5pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 20:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::::I'm with you 100% on that. "Creation myth" is used to refer to Genesis only once in the article itself, in the lede, and is used in a formal sense, and links to an article explaining exactly what is meant when it is used in that sense. The other uses of the term "creation myth" in the article refer to other creation myths. I cannot speak for any use of the term "myth" or "mythology" as opposed to "creation myth", because I haven't looked into it (and is not, to my understanding, the focus of this RfC), but I believe that every instance of "creation myth" in the article is used carefully, and in the formal sense of the term. - ]] 20:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::You obviously know the article better than I do. It sounds like there might be a mild violation of ] at issue as well (in that the Lead is supposed to summarize the article, therefore if something isn't in the article, it probably shouldn't be in the Lead either). I don't think that's anything we need to argue about here though...it seems there's enough going on already :-) Anyway, I think everybody agrees on the accuracy of the academic definition of ''myth'' in ]. Perhaps the question we should be asking is whether or not it is immediately clear to the reader that this definition is the one intended. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.5pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 21:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Does the term 'creation myth' (not just 'myth') have a non-academic meaning? In my view, there is no reason to treat the word 'myth' in isolation from the phrase 'creation myth' when the link plainly is to the latter. It would would be like linking to ] and then claiming that ']' is ambiguous. Considering sentence structure, I would much rather the term 'creation myth' be defined within the first sentence rather than split off into a short, second sentence. For example:
<blockquote>''The '''Genesis creation narrative''' is the ] – the symbolic narrative of how the world began – contained in the first two chapters ...''</blockquote>
:-- ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 17:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I agree with Adjwilley for most of it. Note: I've been passively watching this discussion elevate ever since it was started. The word "myth" is definately a ] in both 'the sense that it lacks precision' and that it will most likely 'introduce bias'. I may be O.K. with a synonym. Lisa is on the right track, as well as the IP (as far as the reason goes). Adjiwilley's definition, modified by me:
::The '''Genesis creation narrative''' is the ] as presented in the first two chapters of the ], the first book of the ] and ].
:This way, ''account''/''narrative''/other or some is linked to the ] article, without implying a bias to someone who isn't familiar with or does not recognize the "academic definition" of ''myth''. <i style="text-shadow:lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</i><i style="text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</i> 18:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::*'''Comment'''- I actually like this idea even better than the original idea as it solves both problems by eliminating the POV spin term ''creation myth'' while still linking to the page to provide an explanation for the uninformed reader who might be curious. I therefore support using the phrase suggested by ]</i><i style="text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</i> which states:
:::The '''Genesis creation narrative''' is the ] as presented in the first two chapters of the ], the first book of the ] and ].
:: ] (]) 05:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Except that "myth" is not a "word to watch", "creation myth" is not a "POV spin term" (only by misunderstanding the meaning of the term could it be considered as such), and the suggested change runs counter to ]. - ]] 05:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I agree with User:Adjwilley, User:Wekn reven i susej eht, and 114.78.5.201, et. al. The word myth is probably a "] in the sense that it lacks precision and may introduce bias." I would support the inclusion of any of the revisions suggested by these three named individuals. I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 18:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - With props to the proposer for trying to resolve a long-running dispute (in which I'm not involved), I '''oppose''' the proposed change as unnecessary and awkward. The current wording uses not simply the term "myth" but the term "creation myth", which is linked to an article which explains exactly what it means. This wording appears to be neutral, verifiable, and simple—just as it should be. That objections continue or recur doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem with the wording. That some readers who haven't been exposed to the term object to it because it contains a word that has other connotations is unfortunate, but they need only follow the link and read some more to learn something new. That is the way WP ''should'' be; we ought not ] around in our wordings because someone might be offended. Incidentally, the term "creation myth" is hardly esoteric; I first encountered it in high school (then subsequently in various university courses in different disciplines). ] (]) 18:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::@Rivertorch, Drawing from personal experience, I was first exposed to the academic usage of ''myth'' as a freshman in college. That said, I don't think that Misplaced Pages should be written at a college level (nor does UPI article, which criticizes WP for being written at a college level instead of a 9th grade level). Also, a reader should not have to click on a link to discover what an ambiguous term means. This is partly personal preference, but it's also advice that's been given to me by more experienced editors. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.5pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 19:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Strictly speaking, neither of our personal experiences should directly influence the decision being made here. I mentioned my experience only after reading comments that (to my reading) implied the term "creation myth" is somehow absent from common discourse. I'm well aware that it's far from universally understood—even at postsecondary education levels—but I don't think that means we need to clutter up article ledes by defining such terms every time one pops up. That ''is'' the beauty of WP's internal links: one term leads to another which leads to another, and before you know it, you've learned something. (I mean "you" in the general sense, of course.) In any event, please note that the relevant term (as I noted above) is not just "myth" but "''creation'' myth", which carries no other meaning aside from the one intended here. ] (]) 23:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' ] states "articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader". The term itself is being used correctly and so meets the policy, however it is causing unnecessary offense and is misleading the reader as per the proposal and must be amended to observe the second half of the phrase. --] (]) 18:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::The wording is "...use these words only in their formal senses '''to''' avoid causing unnecessary offense" not "...use these words only in their formal sense '''and''' avoid causing unnecessary offense" Using the proper use of the term is what avoids the unnecessary offense. Using the term correctly ''is'' what observes the second half of the phrase. By using the term only in the academic sense, in accordance with what reliable sources show, and linking to the article that explains exactly what is meant by the term, we try to minimize any potential offense caused. - ]] 19:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Wow. Thanks for the lesson in prepositions. The problem is that in this case, the use of the term ''is'' causing unnecessary offense and is misleading the reader therefore the policy is not being adhered to correctly. --] (]) 20:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::::The use of the term is necessary, per ], it is impossible for what is necessary to also be unnecessary. Using the term in the formal sense ''is what avoids'' causing unnecessary offense. However, the term must be used per ]. This is necessary. What is unnecessary is using it in an ''informal'' way, to suggest the informal meaning of the term, thereby offending people without reason. This is what is meant by "use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." The word ''is'' being used in its formal sense, therefore it avoids causing unnecessary offense. - ]] 20:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Again, WP is not censored. I know you've read that link a dozen or so times, maybe 5 times from me, so it's really time to drop the offense angle on this. There are literally hundreds of millions of Muslims who would be offended by our article on ] because it violates a deeply held religious tradition by showing depictions of the prophet but at the end of the Arbcom case the images stand. Secondly, in no way does it mislead the reader. To "mislead" would mean that the word were being used in a context to insinuate something that isn't true - you're conflating the fact that some people may not understand the term with the sentence being misleading. Genesis is a creation myth, this is a fact. Stating that fact is not misleading in the least. You have still yet to give a single policy based reason as to why the term shouldn't be included and ignored the fact that the arguments that you make do not matter on WP '''at all''' because offense is not part of our decision making process with very, very few caveats that do not apply to this case. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 01:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::@Noformation: This may be a little tangential, but I was wondering if you had a link to the arbcom case you mentioned previously. I am interested in reading up on it. Also, I've been thinking a lot about the WP:NOTCENSORED argument. I've seen this particular guideline used most often relating to words and images considered offensive because of vulgarity or nudity, though your usage also makes sense. If this interpretation is valid, and NOTCENSORED applies here, I don't think we should ignore the flip side of the coin, in that ''"Misplaced Pages is not censored, but Misplaced Pages also does not seek to needlessly offend its readers."'' (]) While I see you as being fairly neutral on the current issue, I've see others taking a stance like, "It's too bad so many people are offended by this wording, but it's accurate, and Misplaced Pages is NOTCENSORED so we should use it." While I agree with both the accuracy of the wording, and the NOTCENSORED policy, I think it's possible to be both accurate and non-offensive at the same time, at least in this case. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.5pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 22:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Sure, it was a recently settled case and you can read about it . Just to warn you, this is a ''long'' and tedious case to read. I agree with you completely that we shouldn't needlessly offend our readers. If something is going to be offensive it needs to be justified to be included and cannot be included simply because we're not censored. In this case I think that we're well justified in using the word based upon its acceptance in the relevant fields as demonstrated by sources, and so to not include it because it might offend a portion of the population would run counter to NPOV. I might have missed it if other editors have said that we should include it ''because'' we're not censored and would not agree with this line of reasoning. That we're not censored doesn't mean we ''should'' do anything, but rather if there are compelling reasons to do something the fact that we're not censored is a reason not to not include something. I should probably think of a better way to phrase that :) ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 22:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' While I believe that the lead needs a lot of work to comply with the ] guideline, I think the first sentence (first three sentences, actually) are fine as they are. I understand that some people may not realize that the word "myth" has multiple meanings (Myth as in "Bigfoot is a myth" vs Myth as in core religious narrative) and take it as a pejorative description, but I don't think we should rephrase it because of their misconceptions. ] (]) 19:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' A few editors have said that 'myth' is a "word to avoid". This assertion runs directly and explicitly counter to policy. ] says "'']''" Mythology is one of the two examples used at ] in the above example, and ] has no entry for myth. The claim that we should avoid using myth is spurious, and counter to the exact wording of NPOV, and even if "words to avoid" did address it, ] does not trump ]. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 19:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::Just a note: the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted says, "Misplaced Pages 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." I think a problem with the sentence is that it's not immediately clear to an uneducated reader that there is a formal academic definition of ''myth''. I also believe that a reader shouldn't have to constantly follow links to other articles to discover what ambiguous words mean. Though I agree with using the term ''creation myth'' in the article, I think the word ''myth'' should be used with care, especially in the first sentence of the Lead.
::I don't remember if I've ever commented on this article before, but I do remember seeing a RFC here not too long ago. It would be nice if both sides could give a little and agree on something that will be stable. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.5pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 20:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::If it isn't clear to the reader what is meant by the word, they are able to click the term, as it is a ], which provides an "instant pathway to a location within the project that is likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand." - ]] 20:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::: It won't help. I have shown that several times. --] (]) 21:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::@Adjwilley, that is correct; that first sentence says we should use mythology "only in its formal sense", ''which we are doing''. The following sentence says that we should not avoid using it out of "concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings". The argument that readers may not understand we're using the formal sense runs counter to ].
:::::@Walter, you've shown several times that readers remove "creation myth", but it's been shown to you several times that this behavior is normal and does not influence consensus or the weight of sources. If it did, we'd need to change ] to say it might be 6,000 years old. That article gets changed far more than this one. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 21:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::: Please just read what I've written. You're answering a question that is not an issue. The issue is that while the phrase purports to be unoffensive, it isn't. No amount of reasoning will change that fact. I am not asking for the term to be removed. I am stating that we have to change the way the sentence is written to avoid offence and continuing edit wars over the term. --] (]) 21:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I have, Walter. You're still asserting that readers changing the article against consensus should influence our coverage. ]. You're still asserting that the term being 'offensive' should influence our coverage. ]. We are following ] to the letter, which indicates the term may be offensive, and so we should use it only in its formal sense, and not avoid it when appropriate. In theory, I don't object to changing the wording for clarity, but no proposal thus far (including this one) has been acceptable. This wording, like others, attempts to push one of the singular defining characteristics of the subject out of the definition, and adds unnecessary and confusing wording to boot. All this when our current wording is ''explicitly'' supported by policy. I mean seriously... it's the ''example'' NPOV uses to ''demonstrate'' policy. It's not that I haven't read your replies, Walter; it's that you haven't presented a policy-based objection, or a proposal which doesn't suffer from unnecessary problems. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 22:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Jess, take a look at the proposal above by 114.78.5.201 and my addendum to it, I think it's more concise than anything else that has been proposed thus far. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 23:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Yea, I was avoiding that thread while I mulled it over. I've responded now. That may be our best option for the time being. Thanks. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 00:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
@Walter: You've shown nothing, all you've done is make ] without any sort of reasoning or appeal to policy and you've ignored every instance of people pointing out to you that you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting policy. All that matters here is what the sources say; that's the whole point of NPOV, that our views as editors are not inserted into the article. Like it or not, the academic sources (which are what WP uses, like it or not) are very explicit in their use of the term. as Jess pointed out, this word is the word used in the policy to ''demonstrate'' the policy. Your argument is essentially ]. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 01:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
: Sorry. I respectfully disagree. And out of respect for the proposal will stop arguing with the cabal. --] (]) 02:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Note''' The OP for this thread, ] (], has asked editors to look at two possible ways of working "myth" into the opening of the lead. She is not suggesting that the word be dropped. I think we should restrict comments to her proposal. ] (]) 21:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks, PiCo, for keeping us on topic. After reading through the comments above, I think there's a fair consensus against Lisa's specific wording, though I think there have been a few alternate suggestions that merit discussion. I'd like to see this discussion move forward, and I think an important question to discuss is: "''Does the current wording make it clear that the word 'myth' is being used in an academic sense''?" Perhaps Lisa, or an uninvolved editor, could create a subsection for that discussion, where if editors disagree, they can discuss how to fix the sentence so that it is clear. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.5pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 22:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - My only reservation is about the clause "in the academic sense of the term." The page linked to by the term seems, to me, to use only the academic sense of the term, so the clause is seemingly redundant. Also, personally, I am myself unaware of the phrase "creation myth" being used in any sense but the academic sense, so the clause seems to almost be trying to dissociate itself from the relevant content, and I can't see a good reason for such extraordinary measures to be taken. ] (]) 21:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Weak support'''. Suggested wording is clearer to a general audience, but too verbose. Is there a way we can say this in less words? Here's one suggestion, borrowing from the lede of ]:
::The '''Genesis creation narrative''' is a ] (a symbolic narrative of how the world began) contained in the first two chapters of the ], the first book of the ] (the ] of the ]).
:I personally believe the Genesis narrative to be a myth in the colloquial sense of ''fictional'' as well, but would like to avoid further bloodshed over the issue, and be clear about the meaning of terms we use. ] 03:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - There is abundant evidence—anthropological, archeological, geological, cosmological—that the Genesis 'creation narrative' is a ''myth'' in both the colloquial sense ''and'' the academic sense. Many religious people acknowledge that the account can only be regarded as 'allegory', which is essentially a euphemism for 'myth'. ] lists quite a few articles that no one minds referring to as ''myths''. The assertion that the ''biblical'' creation myth can't be called a 'myth' is merely ''argumentum ad populum''.
:Misplaced Pages is not censored, and does not need to employ euphemisms to avoid upsetting people who believe something that is ostensibly not real. See also ].--] (]) 04:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
:In that case the ''theory of evolution'' should be included in your ] as it is even less supported by evidence—anthropological, archeological, geological, or cosmological—than the Genesis ''creation narrative'' and is in fact a far-fetched explanation of events leading up to life in the universe that denies scientific reality. (sorry about the off topic comment, but again, editors are only wishing to include context from only one side of the subject, which violates ]). ] (]) 05:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::That is maybe the most ridiculous statement on this page and it's utter, absolute bullshit. There are literally dozens if not hundreds of articles published in peer reviewed journals ''every week'' that add to the ''immense'' amount of evidence for evolution. You are clearly out of your element here and need to take a biology class or 5. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not some crap blog that can publish any sort of nonsense that its editors want. Find me a reputable encyclopedia on this planet that treats evolution as anything other than the well established theory that it is. We have many, many policies that demand evolution be treated as fact - we even have an article entitled ]. And just FYI, from someone who actually studies science, believe it or not but there is more physical evidence for evolution than there is for the ]. Please educate yourself on the topic if you're going to comment on it. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 05:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
:::The '''theory of evolution''' has absolutely no basis in scientific fact, and chose to believe it or not, it still regarded as a '''THEORY''' and not as ''scientific fact''. The theory in itself is more religion than science and creates a conundrum of which came first, the chicken or the egg, or more scientifically stated, which came first RNA or DNA, both of which are dependent on the other for their very existence. In other words, you cant have RNA without the pre-existence of DNA, and yet RNA must be present for DNA to be formed. Those my friend, are scientific '''facts''' and they lead to the simple conclusion that life ''' ''must'' ''' have had an intelligent creator, rather than forming by ''accident''. ] (]) 06:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Your response indicates a fundamental misunderstaning of the meaning of ''theory'' as it applies to the scientific method. Specifically, a theory is not simply a vague untested concept with no evidence, but "A coherent statement or set of ideas that explains observed facts or phenomena, or which sets out the laws and principles of something known or observed; a hypothesis confirmed by observation, experiment etc." Compare ], ]. Your flawed concept of the term ''theory'' in this sense is popular among creationists. The Usage notes at Wiktionary's entry for ] even states:
:::::''In scientific discourse, the sense “unproven conjecture” is discouraged (with ''hypothesis'' or ''conjecture'' preferred), due to unintentional ambiguity and intentional equivocation with the sense “well-developed statement or structure”. This is particularly found with reference to the “]”, which opponents disparage with “it’s just a '''theory''' ”, while proponents retort that in this context, '''theory''' means instead “well-developed, well-established”.''
::::--] (]) 06:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Obviously, you've had a very poor education and don't have a full grasp of the definition of the word "'''Theory'''". I could help you by defining it for you, but you will likely get greater benefit by actually looking it up in a dictionary. ] (]) 03:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
::::You seem to be thoroughly confusing the informal use of the word theory with the formal one. Evolution is a theory the same way ] is, unless you mean to suggest that gravity and ] are also "still regarded as a theories and not as scientific fact". This only serves to demonstrate that your arguments against usage of "myth" are similarly flawed, based on a similar misunderstanding of the meaning. - ]] 07:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::::: You seem to be thoroughly confusing! Gravitation is a law, not a theory. Go read the article linked to the redirect you linked. Newton codified it as a ]. Prior to that, it was just a theory and there are theories on how it actually works, but gravity is itself a ]. This only goes to show that your ideas are similarly flawed, based on a similar misunderstanding of the meaning. --] (]) 07:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::Wrong. Theories do not "become laws", a law is a fact, it just is. A theory explains the why and how. They are not mutually exclusive; there is a law of gravity, and a theory of gravity. If you're going to copy and paste someone else's comment to mock them, at least get your facts straight. - ]] 07:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Indeed. (And I will here re-iterate that believers like to misuse the term ''theory'' by ignoring the scientific context of the term.) Additionally, if Walter were to read ], he would see that the history of the ''theory'' did ''not'' end with Newton to be replaced with a ''law''. Rather, the history of the ''theory'' extends right up to the more detailed modern understanding of gravity.--] (]) 07:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::This is laughable, it's like being on a game show where you have to convince people from the 10th century that the earth isn't flat and that the sky isn't made of water, except you're playing the part of ] and the only contestant is ]. Do you not realize that the entire field of biology makes no sense without evolution? DNA itself was discovered because two very brilliant men deduced ''from evolutionary theory'' that it must exist. Without evolution it could not have been predicted nor found. The two of you have ''no'' idea what you're talking about in any stretch of the imagination. Take ''one'' biology class if you're so in to biology, please. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 09:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}Apparently, few here have a true grasp of either the definition of the word "theory" or exactly what is and isn't understood regarding either Newtons law of gravity, which has application in Physics, or of the "theory of gravity", which is the subject of a multitude of debates in the scientific community, because gravity is still not understood and how it works is still a ''mystery''. They are in fact, two separate issues and thus two separate topics. That aside, the topic was ''evolution'', not ''theory''. To bring the discussion to theory instead of evolution is like discussing a box containing some material, rather than the contents of the box, because you don't know enough about the contents of the box to sound intelligent and therefore discuss the container to detract from the true point of the discussion,(politicians do this all the time). The scientific facts are that the ''theory'' of evolution has no basis in scientific fact because it falls into a conundrum when trying to explain either the origins or the complexity of life. Evolution thus fails a basic litmus test and cannot answer basic questions, such as which came first, RNA or DNA, both of which are dependent on the other for their very existence and cannot exist without the other existing first. These basic facts necessitate intelligent design, not evolution, for the beginnings of life. Evolution therefore, will never be proven correct and will always remain a farfetched ''theory''. ] (]) 05:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
:As far as the specific RFC request, the former wording is suitable. The suggested alternative wording sounds more like a ''disclaimer'' with a ''provisional'' definition of the term. This is unnecessary, unless ''all'' creation myth articles are treated the same way.--] (]) 04:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::That's actually a good point. I didn't think about ] here but it seems to loosely apply. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 05:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
*I of course oppose the suggested rewrite, which strikes me as amateurish (in the academic sense of the term...). I would note that the proposer seems confused that already by not entitling this article the Genesis Creation Myth, in keeping with our other creation myth articles, this already reflects compromise wording. So I support moving this back to Genesis Creation Myth for consistency with similar articles. Simply put, there is ''no way'' that someone who believes Genesis to be true (to whatever degree) can bend an encyclopedic treatment of this topic, given the weight of academic consensus, to their POV, although this article can certainly admit of the fact that plenty of people actually believe the story of Genesis. I know that this is an ongoing issue, but Misplaced Pages is not a ] for people who find the conclusions of a century of biblical criticism objectionable, nor can Misplaced Pages adopt a form of self-censoring prior restraint by shying away from representing that consensus based on the protection of sensibilities. And finally, Lisa, calling something a "violation of NPOV" because it doesn't conform to your personal views, while reflecting the academic literature, is itself an obvious violation of ]. ] (]) 09:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::'''Comment'''. I am indifferent to it, for the most part. I weakly oppose putting it in the body of the article. I weakly support putting it in a large footnote (i.e. style). I weakly consent to keeping it as is, with the wikilink, but think the page needs to be semi-protected if so, because at least one or two different IPs comes in here every day to change it from "myth" to "story" or "account". If the page is not semi-protected, I do believe clarification is needed, so I support a note, and am indifferent to/weakly oppose putting it in the article, but will lend my support to putting it in the article if consensus for a note can't be found. Summing up: 1. Keep it as-is and semi-protect the page, 2. Add a note, 3. Put it in the article, in that order of preference. I am moderately opposed to moving the article per ]. Note to above poster: "theory" means "demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt". In scientific discourse, "hypothesis" is used in the way you use "theory". ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 03:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::'''Further Comment''': I '''fully support and endorse''' BlackRaven's wording - ''The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth – the symbolic narrative of how the world began – contained in the first two chapters''... (with or without "symbolic") as the best compromise solution yet suggested to keep the first sentence from being constantly vandalized, which is a strong sign in confirmation of my far-earlier suspicions - that a large amount of users who read the first sentence page are confused by it (a position I stopped holding, at the time, due to the simple and reasonable statement of another user, "do we actually have any studies that show the average person is likely to misunderstand the term"? - it seems now that many do, based on the levels of changes, especially when compared to the Law of Internet Content Creation. ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 03:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I don't think its a matter of people misunderstanding the term, but of people not liking the term. The same situation is present at the ] article with people constantly changing the same thing over and over, not because of a misunderstanding, but because it isn't consistent with their POV. - ]] 04:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::::"Never attribute to malice what incompetence can explain" is the dictum I follow here with IPs.
*'''Comment''' The current wording seems fine, the link to creation myth avoids ambiguities. ] (]) 09:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::The current wording doesn't comply with policy. It is ''not neutral'' to call all the other creation myths ''myths'', but to call ''this one'' something else.--] (]) 12:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::My comment was aimed at the original wording of it being called creation myth in line with what the academic sources do. "current wording" was a bad choice of words as the article had changed. ] (]) 16:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
===Moving forward===
So far:
*It seems everyone is happy to make some accommodation towards avoiding the possibility of offending readers;
*No-one seems to be particularly for the wording suggested by ] and endorsed by ].
*Most people seem to agree that the proposal to rename the article to ] and specify what exactly we mean by the term ] in the first sentence so we very clearly satisfy ]. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I count:
**'''For''': Myself, Anupam, FoxCE, Noformation, Jess, Adjwilley, Walter Görlitz, <s>Wekn (I think)</s>;
**'''Against''': Willietell, Wekn; JohnChrysostom
**'''Unknown''': SudoGhost, Black Falcon, PiCo, Dcoetzee (although he/she is proposing a similar solution, although I don't like the idea of parentheticals in the first sentence), Jeffro77)
*Some of the above people have made additional suggestions, for example linking ] in the first sentence, and this should be fine (but is an easy thing do once we're settled on the path forward).
So, perhaps the people who haven't yet commented on this proposal (or some slight alteration of it) could explicitly comment on it and then assuming most people are happy then we can move forward? ] (]) 05:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
:I am against renaming the article, I am not opposed to changing the lead, I prefer the suggestion offered up by ]</i><i style="text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</i> , which is:
::The '''Genesis creation narrative''' is the ] as presented in the first two chapters of the ], the first book of the ] and ].
:I prefer this rendering because it solves the issue of POV spin that is leading to edit warring over the insistence of using the terminology ''creation myth'' while providing a link to this very page for expanded understanding by the reader. I think this a a fair and logical approach. ] (]) 05:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::Please stop calling it a POV spin. It is not that editors on this talk page want it to be "myth" it is that the ''reliable sources'' call it a creation myth. NPOV means we report what the sources say and best represent the academic view. Can you not see that your statement is saying that the sources are POV and thus we should do what ''you'' think is fair instead? That's the very definition a POV violation. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 11:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
:Per my statement , my position should not be unclear. I support the previous wording rather than Lisa's suggested wording or the other suggestions. Additionally, ] states, "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings."--] (]) 05:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::That's unfortunate, because that position splits the vote. My suggestion of renaming the article and using this (or similar) as a first sentence
:::''The '''Genesis creation myth''' is the symbolic ] found in the first two chapters of the ] that describes how the world was created.''
::does not avoid using the term ], can not be accused of deliberately offending readers (we spell out what we mean), brings this article into line with our other creation myth article titles and may even discourage random IP's from trying to drive-by remove the term ] from the article since it's built into the article title and would be therefore be a wasted effort. ] (]) 05:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::: But it does explain it more fully than it is now. Three people did object to the use of "symbolic". --] (]) 05:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
:::: Are there reliable, academic sources that describe it as literal? If so then let's drop symbolic, if not then it has to stay per NPOV. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 05:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::I just drew the term ''symbolic'' from the ] article for consistency between our articles. I don't see why a biblical literalist would complain about the term - consider that you could argue (in a sense) that the theory of ] is symbolic of what we perceive to be reality; it's a representation. Similarly, the Genesis creation myth is symbolic, and if you choose that to be your representation of reality then so be it. There are no false connotations associated with the term ''symbolic'', in my opinion, but if people really want to remove the term, then so be it, I'm not that worried. ] (]) 06:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::I was only referring to the specific terms of the RFC regarding Lisa's suggested changes. I do not object to renaming the article to ''Genesis creation myth''. Sorry for any confusion. On consideration, I don't have strong objection to the wording offered by 114.78.5.201, with the exception that ''symbolic'' should '''not''' be used, as some believers consider the account to be wholly literal.--] (]) 06:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
:I object to including the use of the phrase ''creation myth'' in the title as well as to the use of the word ''symbolic'' in the description of the Genesis account as '''BOTH''' are simply an introduction of ''more POV spin into the article. POV spin issues cannot be solved by the introduction of yet more POV spin. ] (]) 05:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::If I were a literalist, I would be more concerned about the connotations of the term ''story'' than the connotations of the term ''symbolic'', but hey, each to their own. ] (]) 06:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::: The problem with symbolic is that it contradicts those who hold a literal interpretation of the creation narrative. The word "story" isn't used. --] (]) 06:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::::You're still acting as though it matters what the layman thinks about the subject, so apparently I have to point out again that this is not the case. NPOV is not determined by the opinions of the layman it is determined by expert sources. If every person on earth believed the sky way red but one single reliable source said it was blue our article would also call it blue. The reliable sources - IE the scholarly sources - do not speak of genesis literally and so per wikipedia policy that is what the article must represent. I get that you don't like the rules, so by all means try and change them; until that happens these kinds of statements hold no water. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 09:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
*For the record, since I wasn't mentioned in the IP editor's count above, I see no compelling reason for change and therefore support the status quo. We don't "vote" on these things, however; consensus cannot be found in numbers alone. Besides, this is still a very new RfC and many contributors may yet wish to weigh in. It seems premature to talk about "moving forward" just yet. ] (]) 06:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone dig up the AFD on the ] article? It's listed in the history but as a red link. I'd be interested to hear the arguments in that case. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 09:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
:The AfD was about the redirect, not the article itself (), which was then discussed ]. - ]] 10:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::On the statement at the beginning of this section, I conform more to Willietell's view, part of which states: "I prefer this rendering because it solves the issue of POV spin that is leading to edit warring over the insistence of using the terminology creation myth while providing a link to this very page for expanded understanding by the reader. I think this a a fair and logical approach." <i style="text-shadow:lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</i><i style="text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</i> 10:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}That would violate ] by doing exactly what Misplaced Pages policy says ''not'' to do, so it is not an option. - ]] 10:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
:Escuse me, but:
<p>On the statement at the beginning of this section, I conform more to Willietell's view, part of which states: "I prefer this rendering because it solves the issue of POV spin that is leading to edit warring over the insistence of using the terminology creation myth while providing a link to this very page for expanded understanding by the reader. I think this a a fair and logical approach." <p> Especially per: "Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Misplaced Pages articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at words to avoid." Not because readers may confuse the two meanings, but because even the formal meaning can be used offensively, and the word 'narrative' seems to more accurately describe what is found in chapters 1 through 2. <i style="text-shadow:lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</i><i style="text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</i> 10:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::If you disagree with Misplaced Pages policy, then discuss that on the policy talk page. But as per the policy you quoted, ] must be used, and should not be changed just to avoid causing offense. The formal meaning is used in a very specific way to avoid unnecessary offense, but that does not mean that possible offense is cause to remove what is reflected by reliable sources. - ]] 10:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::Wekn, this interpretation was explained as incorrect above. The clause is not saying that those words be used in their formal sense ''and'' not to cause offense, it's saying that those words should be used in their formal sense ''to'' not cause offense. The policy doesn't prescribe anything beyond using the words formally as a means to inhibit offense, it is exclusive to that one way of doing so. The rest of RNPOV specifically states that we do not omit academic terms for the sake of catering to a religious viewpoint. I can't see any justification for your proposal because it obfuscates a much used academic term and the only reason I can imagine it does so is to remove what some may consider an offensive element from the mix, and fortunately or not, that contradicts WP policy. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 10:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I agree that there is no policy justification for removing the term "creation myth" because it may offend the sensibilities of uninformed readers. First of all, Genesis 1 and 2 are routinely and non-controversially described as a "creation myth" in the scholarly literature. Second of all, readers come here to be informed, and the information that Genesis is a creation myth is essential information. Third of all, for readers who are still confused, a link is provided to the article on "Creation Myth" so as to clear up any misundrestandings.
:::We do not patronize uninformed or misinformed readers simply out of reluctance to hurt their feelings. As long as we are using the term in the scholarly sense, we are not responsible for how they feel. That is their own problem, and they'll just have to deal with it. It's a normal part of learning, and growing up. Keeping them in an informational ghetto does them no service, as far as the goals of WP are concerned. ] (]) 11:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Agree completely with the above. ] (]) 11:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::::So do I. Well said. ~ ] (]) 05:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
People can go round in circles all they like. The end of the matter is that the Genesis account is a ''creation myth'', and per Misplaced Pages policy, that is exactly what the article should call it. Misplaced Pages is not censored. Secular sources call it a creation myth. Misplaced Pages is supposed to use the correct formal terms. End of story. If people don't like the ''policies'', they need to discuss the policies elsewhere.--] (]) 11:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
:Its not a matter of ''liking'' a policy, its more a matter of not adhering to some people's opinionated interpretation of that policy. The policy was put in place to avoid just what certain editors are attempting to do, which is use scientific terminology to embed POV spin into an article and then stand back and hid their intentions behind the policy and plead innocence. The use of ''creation myth'' in this instance is introducing POV spin into the article in just such a manner, and it therefore in violation of ], like it or not. ] (]) 16:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::That dog won't hunt. Best shoot it now. ] (]) 17:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
:: Creation myth is not POV, but it is only one term used to describe the event. And ideally, the term should be elaborated. Click-through obviously doesn't work. --] (]) 17:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
:::"Opinionated interpretation"? The '''policy''' says: "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." The '''policy''' is ''extremely'' clear. The article should not avoid using the term ''myth'', which is the formal term used in reliable sources. The wording in the article should not be modified "out of sympathy for a particular point of view". It is not sufficient reason to leave out the correct formal term out of "concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." The objections to the '''correct''' terminology are '''entirely''' against the policy.--] (]) 02:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Take a look at Willietell's talk page archives. S/he has a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV and sourcing and has been accused in the past of POV pushing on Jehova's Witness articles. It's also been noted that when a source contradicts his world view he refers to it as a POV spin. What he needs to understand is that NPOV refers to editor opinions, and that sources are the only thing that matters on WP - NPOV means following what the sources say ''regardless of whether editors agree with it'' I fear, however, that this will fall on deaf ears since it's not the first time he's been told. Ultimately it's not really relevant though; no closing admin is going to consider arguments that misunderstand policy. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 02:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> I don't know why you want to get personal and start slinging mud, this subject has little to do with me, my religious affiliation, or my talk page archives. It has to do with whether or not the inclusion of the phrase "''creation myth''" leads the reader to a POV interpretation, nothing else...I feel that it does, as do other editors here. Reasonable compromises have been offered. I have supported one that was offered by an editor who I have never had any past dealings with in an attempt to reach consensus. There is no need to attempt to engage in personal attacks of myself or or any other editors, as we need to direct our attention towards being constructive in editing out the POV spin introduced by "''creation myth''". ] (]) 07:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::Willietell, a ''great many'' of the issues that you consider to be "POV spin", in reference to statements from reliable sources, are ''quite directly'' related to your religious affiliation, as is the case for ''several'' editors who object to the proper academic term, ''creation myth''.
::::::If the purpose of the RFC is to determine whether the intro "leads the reader to a POV interpretation," then the RFC is '''redundant'''. The '''policy''' already explains that "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources out of ... concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings."--] (]) 07:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I like this wording:
*"The '''Genesis creation narrative''' is the ] contained in the first two chapters of the ], the first book of the ] (the ] of the ])."
::Per the policy (]), it should be ''Genesis creation myth''. The rest of this suggested wording is fine, and the piped link for '']'' gets around saying 'creation myth' twice in the same sentence.--] (]) 06:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
*I would support to change it to that wording (or something similar). I would oppose a change in the title of the article. ] ] 18:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
**I'm fairly '''neutral''' on moving the article, though I doubt that a move will result an any long-term stability, since it seems to be a step away from compromise. I think the wording above would be a nice compromise, but I don't think a consensus will be reached if the discussion becomes any more polarized. I'm going to take this page back off my watchlist now, but I can be reached on my talk page if somebody has a question. Good luck! <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.5pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
:::It would be kind of hard for drive by IPs to challenge it being in the lede if it were the title of the article though, and with a large RFC backing the move, arguing against it after the fact would kind of pointless. This may upset certain editors with a hard Christian POV, but it's the option that's most in line with policy and may have the best shot of stability. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 00:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::::This is an ''encylopedia''. It presents information from reliable sources. It's not a church journal. "Editors should not avoid using terminology ... out of sympathy for a particular point of view." We ''do not'' need to dance around the word ''myth'' with other euphemisms. People with "a hard Christian POV" will have to either accept it or refrain from reading the article. Cartoons depicting ] are present at ] for much the same reason.--] (]) 02:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:Having a "moving forward" discussion seems inappropriate in that the RFC is still open. ] (]) 09:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:I agree that talking of ''moving forward'' is likely premature after only two days of opening an RfC. Still, out of concern for there being only one viewpoint being represented in the ''moving forward'' discussion, I have participated, as I will in the attempt to improperly introduce POV spin into the name of the article by re-naming it to include the contested phrase to compound the error with a ''more is less'' attitude. The policy that is being used to insist that "''creation myth''" be used states:
::"''Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Misplaced Pages articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at words to avoid.''"
:What is being ignored by certain editors is the first sentence, as the introduction of the word "''creation myth''" in the manner in which it is being employed, does '''not''' "''take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader.''" In fact, it uses them in such a way as to '''cause''' offense and mislead the reader by taking an opinionated stance, in the article, in support of viewing the ''Genesis Creation Narrative'' as a ''mythological story'' and therefore untrue, and seems to do so in a rather purposeful manner. It does not attempt to handle the view held by multitudes that the Genesis account is a true historical representation of creation, and thus puts Misplaced Pages in the position of ''taking sides'', which constitutes POV spin and is therefore in violation of ]. ] (]) 15:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::The quoted policy does not say "Do not use these words to avoid causing offense", which is what you are suggesting. Neither does the policy suggest that causing offense is a determining factor either, it in fact states the exact opposite. What it ''does'' say, is to use terminology in a formal sense to avoid causing ''unnecessary'' offense, not to avoid causing ''any'' offense. The article does this, reinforced by the wikilink explaining the meaning intended. - ]] 15:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::If its use wasn't causing ''unnecessary offense'', the edit-warring would not be going on and we would not be having this discussion. Please don't pretend to be in denial of reality here. I am not suggesting that the policy says "Do not use these words to avoid causing offense", but the policy implies that editors should ''take care'' in the use of possibly inflammatory wording. Phrases such as ''creation myth'', when discussing the beliefs held by millions, is certainly a possibly inflammatory phrase, as is indicated by the number of times it has been edited out, thus demonstrating that its use has not been carefully considered to avoid inflaming the reader. I submit that ''better alternatives'' are available and thus should be substituted to avoid the constant back and forth editing. This is only common sense and should be little cause for argument, but instead, some editors are unyielding in their support of the terminology in the article and now insist also in its incorporation into the title as well. ] (]) 16:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Not true. The fact that it is edit-warred over at most suggests that it causes ''some'' offense, however this does not preclude the necessity of adherence to reliable sources. This is what is meant by ''unnecessary'' offense, that no offense is caused is not the priority, it is secondary to ]. The number of adherents to a particular religion is not a factor in determining anything, and if the number of times it has been edited was an indication of what you suggest, then the both the ] and ] articles would have to state "6,000 years" instead of adhering to reliable sources, and we would have to remove any image of the prophet ] from any article on Misplaced Pages. However, we do not do this, because while it is unfortunate that some people are offended by certain things on Misplaced Pages, this is not what guides our policies or our articles. - ]] 16:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::It ''does'' cause unnecessary offense. ] ] 05:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::No it does not. You are confusing "unnecessary offense" with offense caused by adherence to Misplaced Pages policy. That offense is caused does not equate to "unnecessary offense", and simply being offended is not something that guides the policy. Will you also argue that ] on Misplaced Pages cause unnecessary offense? Should those also be removed? - ]] 11:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
===Getting back on track===
I am simply appalled. This RfC was intended to sidestep the conflict, and instead, it is being used by both sides to launch renewed assaults to push their own POVs.
There are a number of issues that are being ignored here. First and foremost is Misplaced Pages policy. This is taken from ]:
<blockquote>
'''An important note on using the term "fundamentalism":''' In studies of religion, this word has a very specific meaning. Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages editors should be prepared to see some articles edited due to seemingly minor quibbles. Stay civil and try not to take discussions too personally.
</blockquote>
I've bolded the sentence "'''Take care to explain ''what is meant by this term'' in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader.'''" for emphasis. Misplaced Pages is about providing information. Not about reaching for some sort of academic or ideological purity. The suggestions above which remove the term "creation myth" entirely, relegating it to a hidden wikilink, are inappropriate. As is the ill-considered request move request below.
Secondly, some editors have argued that ] requires that articles have a uniform title. That if ] and ] are called creation myths in the title, it would be POV to not use creation myth in the title here. This reflects a misunderstanding of ]. As stated, Misplaced Pages is not about achieving some sort of purity. It is about providing information. ] suggested above that "The assertion that the ''biblical'' creation myth can't be called a 'myth' is merely ''argumentum ad populum''." Misplaced Pages is ''for'' the populum. The goal should be readability. Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of Misplaced Pages readers understand the terms "myth" and "creation myth" as denoting fiction is ignoring reality.
Perhaps the particular edit I suggested in the RfC isn't the smoothest writing possible. That doesn't change the fact that the appropriate solution to this ongoing and incessant war is to (a) identify the first two chapters of Genesis as a "creation myth" in the lede, and (b) clarify -- '''right there, and not merely in a wikilink''' -- what is meant by "creation myth" in this context. - ] (] - ]) 15:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:Yes, if we use “creation myth”, and I believe we should, better we should do so with an inline explanation. Informing readers is our goal. ~ ] (]) 05:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
::Lisa here (deliberately?) confuses ''argumentum ad populum'' with some notion of ''argumentum pro populum''. Misplaced Pages is indeed ''for'' the 'populum'. But it presents the ''views'' of reliable sources, not of 'the populum'.--] (]) 13:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
:Again another section is started before the RFC has finished. Can people not simply wait till the RFC has finished so we can gauge where we are and what the consensus is? This section appears intended to sidestep the conflict, and instead, it is being used to launch renewed assaults to push their own POVs (paraphrasing your words).] (]) 10:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
== Requested move ==
{{Requested move/dated|Genesis creation myth}}
] → {{no redirect|1=Genesis creation myth}} – ] states that "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." The correct formal term for this article per that policy is ''Genesis creation myth''. ] (]) 06:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' move. This will bring the article's title back in line with sister articles found at ], none of which use similar euphemistic terminology to tiptoe around sensibilities regarding the academic term. Most of the recent argumentation here has revolved around ''where'' and in what context to place the phrase "''creation myth''", and I think that only a move back to the original name can stabilize this continuous conflict. — ''']''' <small>(] • ])</small> 07:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::This move will not stabilize the conflict any more than it did the last time this was tried. And the titles of other articles are not relevant. If you go to ], you can see that not all of them use that term in the title anyway. - ] (] - ]) 16:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::All of the articles about creation myths listed at ] have "myth" in the title; it's just that some of those links are to articles with ''subsections'' about a creation myth. The sister article titles are relevant because they use the proper notable academic term, which is the same one used in all of our primary sources here. — ''']''' <small>(] • ])</small> 23:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I support this per the discussion in the above RFC. In particular:
:*The consensus is clear that this ''is'' a creation myth;
:*The suggested title does not avoid using the term creation myth (as suggested by ]);
:*With respect to certain terms, taking care not to deliberately offend people is also mentioned in ], and the suggested article title allows us to eloquently construct a sentence that spells out exactly what we mean by the term creation myth so as to avoid that possibility, for example:
:::''The '''Genesis ]''' is the ] found in the first two chapters of the ] that describes how the world was created.''
:*The suggested title brings this article into line with the article titles of our other creation myth articles (the current situation suggests the current article title is avoiding the term creation myth);
:*Some people are concerned by drive-by censorship, and the suggested title may actually discourage random IP's trying to censor the term: since the term is built into the article title such a change would require discussion on the talk page. ] (]) 07:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Per the Manual of Style, the bold text should not contain a link. Therefore, to retain a rather imporant link to the academic concept of ''creation myth'' without saying it twice in one sentence, it should say something like ''The '''Genesis creation myth''' is the ] found in the first two chapters of the ].''--] (]) 07:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Perhaps I missed the obvious, but after scouring through the relevant MOS guidelines I don't see anything about avoiding wikilinks in the leading bold text. Can you point to the relevant guideline page? Thanks. — ''']''' <small>(] • ])</small> 07:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::I'd prefer not to confuse the situation by using two different terms to refer to the same concept. After a quick scan I couldn't find anything in the MoS that prohibited a wikilink where I suggested (note that the article title is ''descriptive'' not ''proper''), however something like
::::::''The '''Genesis creation myth''' is the ] found in the first two chapters of the ] that describes how the world was ].''
:::::might work too. However, it's probably not worth investing too much time in the details of the first sentence until ''after'' the Requested Move succeeds. ] (]) 08:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::]: "Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead."--] (]) 08:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::Also, if the title is considered merely discriptive rather a specific reference, note that ] states that "if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." If different words are used in the opening sentence for descriptive titles, they also do not need to be in bold (see the Mississippi River example at ]). However, I think in this case that the title is too specific to be considered 'descriptive' in that context.--] (]) 08:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I think we can follow what is done at ], where "creation of the world" is hyperlinked to ], thus: {{tq|The '''Genesis creation myth''' is the account of the ] contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible).}}. That seems to flow nicely. — ''']''' <small>(] • ])</small> 08:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::The redundancy in the lead of that article isn't really a prime example, but your suggestion seems to work.--] (]) 08:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::To reduce wordiness, and to reflect that the ''account'' is the ''creation myth'', could we change it to: {{tq|The '''Genesis creation myth''' is the ] contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible).}}?--] (]) 08:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::That could work as well—we can wait for further input from others to see what the community can agree on. — ''']''' <small>(] • ])</small> 08:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': WP exists to inform people about the scholarly consensus, not to patronize them. We use the language favored by the experts in the topic area, not the language uninformed and misinformed readers are comfortable with. Creating a "comfort zone" or "Christian Ghetto" does our readers no service. ] (]) 08:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::WP exists to inform people. Full stop. Using a term that you know will be understood by most readers is a policy violation. - ] (] - ]) 16:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I'm assuming you meant ''mis''understood. However, that is''not'' a policy violation, and is in fact specifically mentioned by ] as being something that is not a factor in determining the usage of said terminology. - ]] 20:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
*I '''support''' this, but won't argue for it when the rocks start falling. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per ] and for consistency with other creation myth articles. ] (]) 09:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::Consistency is not Misplaced Pages policy. And ] clarifies ], stating that the term should be explained for readers. Which cannot be done in the title, but can and should be done in the lede. - ] (] - ]) 16:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Of course it says that, since you added it into the FAQ: . ] (]) 16:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::::I did no such thing. I added the paragraph noting that "myth" and "creation myth" are cases functionally identical to the case of "fundamentalism", which was already there. I'll thank you not to make false accusations. - ] (] - ]) 21:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The fact that this article is not already entitled as a creation myth is a serious ] issue. Firstly, our sources call it a creation myth without contention, and in fact the only opposition is based upon the personal feelings of a number of editors who hold ] views on the subject and believe that the word "myth" is offensive because it's not in line with a fundamentalist Christian POV. Secondly, ] specifically uses the word "myth" to demonstrate the policy; the policy itself reads that we should not shy away from using established academic terms in order to appease a segment of the population that may not agree with said terminology. As it stands, there have been no policy based arguments against using the term in the article nor against using it in the title. All arguments against it have been based on ], with at least one editor claiming that the sources themselves are a "POV spin", which clearly misunderstands the purpose and meaning of ]. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 09:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::The continued assertion that only a Christian POV explains wanting to clarify the term "creation myth" in the lede, rather than place it in the title, is demonstrably false. I'm not a Christian. - ] (] - ]) 16:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::As a member of a religion in support of the creation myth found in the Hebrew Bible, your objection is semantically redundant.--] (]) 08:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as it reflects the name used by sources. ] (]) 09:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
* '''Oppose.''' Unfortunately the word "myth" has a negative connotation. The word "narrative" is actually NPOV and should be maintained. However hard to understand from a non-traditionalist point of view, there are people who believe that the first two chapters of Genesis reflect the actual order of creation (perhaps in shrouded language, e.g. one "day" denoting millions of years) and that it is certainly not a myth. This point of view would be underrepresented if we chose the term "myth" where the more neutral term "narrative" could be used. ] | ] 11:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
**''"There are people..."'' — just curious: how many? Where are they? ] <sup>]</sup> 11:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::You're welcome to your opinion. But ''myth'' is the correct term per '''policy'''.--] (]) 12:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::No, it actually is not. ] is clarified by ]. - ] (] - ]) 16:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Actually, it is. The "clarification" you added does not carry any weight, nor does it, even as written, preclude adherence to ]. The usage is correct and formal. - ]] 20:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::It’s true, there do exist “]”; ] was one. For we moderns who know that earth came into being not on day 3 but in year 9.2 billion, a literal seven-day creation is untenable. So, by some creative leaps, day-agers impose a reading of “age” upon Genesis’s plainly literal “days” (“And the evening and the morning were the ___th day”), vainly hoping that stretching out their duration would salvage their belief in Genesis being “literally” true. Instead, day-agers telescope sequence problems with Genesis’s order of creation by many orders of magnitude (like having terrestrial plants exist for millions of years before our sun). ~ ] (]) 00:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::: We don't ''know'' that it took 9.2 billion years. We ''assume'' it took that long. --] (]) 00:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
* '''Oppose.''' "Myth" is merely a term found occasionally in use in academic circles. "Story" would probably be the most commonly encountered characterization of "Genesis". The term "narrative" is perfectly acceptable as a characterization of the Genesis creation story as it is clearly understood by all—without the negative connotations of "myth". We should be mature enough not to be taking potshots at easy targets such as religion in our article-naming and in the words used in the leads of articles. The positioning of the term "myth" in the title or in the lead I feel is just a gratuitous slight to the broad area of religion, which makes an easy target. We should exercise restraint and use terms such as "narrative" or "story" which fail to express the negative opinions that "myth" inevitably conveys. ] (]) 12:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
**Curious: what makes this one different from every other myth? White people believe it? ] <sup>]</sup> 12:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::See above.--] (]) 12:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure why you would bring skin color in to this discussion. It seems out of place, childish, rude, and incendiary. It makes me discount pretty much every argument you put forth. ] (]) 13:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::::It isn't any of the things you mentioned. I am simply asking whether it is believed that a supposedly offensive term can be readily applied to the beliefs of black people, brown people, and Asians, but not when it potentially offends white people. It's a completely legitimate question. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::It certainly sounds like very uncharitable, cynical, bordering on malicious, race-baiting to me. I would support using "narrative" for all of those titles described as such in reliable sources, but, in English, Judaic and Christian sources predominate, as do those for living religions, and those with more adherents. There's not ongoing discussion and debate about the Egyptian stories, nor about the many Hindu ones in English literature, from what I know. It has ''absolutely nothing'' to do with race, and I ask that you strike those two comments. ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 19:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
* '''Strong support''' the consensus is that this is a creation myth we should not use euphemistic expressions when there is a clear academic term in general use.] (]) 12:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - ] is clear on this, and the only arguments I have seen given against this are that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings, something RNPOV specifically says is not a determining factor in using such terminology. - ]] 12:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::] is clarified by ]. ] says that the term should be used, but ] says that editors should "take care to explain ''what is meant by this term'' in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." That can't be done in a title; it can and should be done in the lede. And a wikilink is insufficient.
:::Something you ''just'' added to the FAQ doesn't make it a policy. However, even if it were, I very highly doubt that adding it to the title somehow makes it impossible to clarify the title of the article, and unless you can demonstrate the highly unlikely scenario where it would be impossible to clarify something, then that argument carries no weight. - ]] 20:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::::I did not add the basic principle to the FAQ. Please don't make false accusations. I ''did'' add a paragraph noting that the one example given there ("fundamentalism") was not the only example, and that the same principle clearly applies to "myth" and "creation myth". - ] (] - ]) 21:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Nor have you demonstrated in any way that the term is not used in its formal sense, nor does the requested move preclude the ability to explain what is meant by the term. The FAQ is in no way an argument against the requested move, even with your recent addition taken into consideration, as nothing being proposed here in any way violates the policy, or the FAQ. - ]] 23:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per FoxCE. - Dank (]) 12:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per the fallacy that assumes the word "myth" has ever been demonstrated to be "terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources". The word "story" is ''far'' more common. ] (]) 13:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::Simply stating this without backing it up does not give any weight to your position, as reliable sources in the article do describe the article's subject . This is in addition to . In fact, most of the sources I found describing it as anything other than this appeared to be Christian sources writing solely from a Christian point of view. On Misplaced Pages, ''independent'' reliable sources carry more weight than non-independent sources. An independent source has ]. I do not think it could be argued that a religious author writing about a religious subject has no significant connection to that religion, nor could it be said that they describe it from a disinterested perspective. Oddly, however, it was only the Christian viewpoints that described it as anything else, the sources I found that discussed the matter from a Judaic perspective had no issue describing it as a creation myth. - ]] 13:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' It's clearly a creation myth, true or false, and although I understand this may offend some sensibilities we can't allow that to determine our articles. ] (]) 14:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::Misplaced Pages policy says otherwise. See ]. - ] (] - ]) 16:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Actually, Misplaced Pages policy ], the addition you recently added to the FAQ does not a policy make. - ]] 20:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::::The only addition I made to the FAQ was an additional paragraph pointing out that what applies to "fundamentalism" applies just as much to "myth" and "creation myth". I added that for the logically impaired. Please don't make false accusations implying that the FAQ didn't already say that such terms should be clarified. - ] (] - ]) 21:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::The above is still completely relevant, and your additional clarification does not alter this, this application has no bearing on the title, the article does have the ability to explain itself, after all. - ]] 23:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I think it comes down to a question of ], so it should be named in a way similar to other articles of the same vein: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. ] (]) 15:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' - for all the same reasons that were used before when this article was wrongly moved to Genesis creation myth. The word "myth" is a loaded term which has a ''very'' common colloquial meaning. Furthermore, I suggest people check out ], where discussing the term "fundamentalism", it says "Take care to explain ''what is meant by this term'' in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." While this is speaking about the term "fundamentalism", the principle applies equally to the term "myth". Since it is impossible to explain what is meant by the term myth in a title, it should not be used here. The issue of other articles is a red herring, and entirely irrelevant. The use of a term in another article does not establish that it is appropriate here. Perhaps it is inappropriate there. The appropriate way to comply with the NPOV FAQ is to retain the current title of the article, define the Genesis creation narrative as a creation myth '''in the lede''', and explain, also in the lede, that the term use being used in the academic sense, rather than the widely understood sense of "fictional creation story." - ] (] - ]) 15:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::That the word "myth" is a loaded term which has a "very" common colloquial meaning is not in any way a determining factor in its use in Misplaced Pages articles, as per ]. Wikilinking to the term at some point in the lede as previously suggested also solves any issue of not explaining the meaning behind the term, and even if this is not the best solution, it is incorrect to say that it is "impossible" to explain what is meant, as this is the entire point of any Misplaced Pages article, to explain and inform. It is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages to ignore reliable sources and instead cater to a select few individuals out of concern that they may be offended, especially when that offense is not based on what is presented, but rather a misunderstanding of the terminology. - ]] 15:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Avoiding terminology (or facts or images or anything really), as you suggest, out of concern we may offend someone is not an ideal this project upholds. For more details you can read the '''policy''' pages ] and ] that directly address this issue. However, as editors it is not our intention to deliberately offend our readers and we do recognise there are situations where some decorum on our part can and should be used, which brings us to your second point (which is largely irrelevant to choosing an article title) ...
:::No-one here objects to explaining in this article what we mean by the term ''creation myth'', and how exactly we can do this has been discussed at length in this RM and the above RFC. We can realise both ideals (neutrality and decorum) by correctly naming this article as ] and then expand the definition of ''creation myth'' in the very first sentence. As I mentioned, there are numerous suggestions of how to do this in this RM and the above RFC. Using phrases like ''"in the academic sense of the term"'' as you suggest is at best poor style and at worst hopelessly unprofessional. ] (]) 16:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::::'Strong Oppose' means nothing more than simply 'Oppose', particularly when it is not backed up with a valid reference to policy, and ''especially'' when the editor has—during the dispute—modified a policy-related article to which they refer.--] (]) 09:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - there is a large body of theological sources who actively question the "correct" definition of the term "myth". There is a large body of theological sources that strenuously oppose the application of "myth" as a genre to this particular work. There is a well documented history of the use of "myth" as a polemic and POV term. (You can find this linked from my userpage). All of this is proven evidence of a widespread viewpoint held by many theological sources to whom this topic is significant. However, all of this evidence of a significant point of view has been brushed aside or ruled "inadmissible" by select wikipedians who happen to take take the opposing view. This cannot be neutral conduct. Wikipedians are not supposed to set themselves up as smarter than reliable sources, or demand POV "litmus tests" for what they consider "reliability" for purposes of establishing that a viewpoint exists. If we make no mention at all of the massively documented opposition to this classification, then we are only telling HALF THE STORY and thereby doing the truth a disservice by pretending the other half does not exist or is unworthy of mention. We can do better. ] (]) 15:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::where is this large body of, presumably mainstream and reliable, theological sources you mention? ] (]) 15:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::: Some of the prominent theologians who have argued for one reason or another that this narrative does NOT fall into the genre of "myth" include: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], etc. etc. Only if we can decalre the opposing POV "right", can we declare this POV "wrong". How is doing so "neutral"? ] (]) 17:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Granting you your list of sources for minute, there are no constraints on this article discussing a conflict of genre. The reality is though that the mainstream point of view is that this material is a creation myth. Avoiding this in the article title is not neutral, it is giving undue weight to your list of sources. ] (]) 16:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Strongly Oppose'''- I feel that to change the title to include the phrase ''creation myth'' is at a minimum, inflammatory. I think it violates ] as well as ] and becomes a title that in and of itself will be a point of contention, and is therefore ill advised. ] (]) 16:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Lisa appears to use what was written in the FAQ as the basis for her argument. This seems disingenuous considering she added the paragraph cited herself: ] (]) 16:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::That's pretty bad form. ] (]) 18:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Very disturbing indeed. Like pissing on the campfire. ] (]) 19:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::::I did nothing of the sort. The paragraph at ] on "fundamentalism" was already there. I added the paragraph about "myth", but did not cite that here, specifically because I was the one who added that. If you think there's a distinction to be made between "fundamentalism", which has a scholarly definition and a connotation which differs, and "myth" (or "creation myth"), about which the same can (and has) been said, you should make that case, rather than violating ]. - ] (] - ]) 21:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::We are discussing Creation myths and you referenced the text which states "that editors should ''take care to explain what is meant by this term in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader.''". This text is present in the section on creation myths. In a discussion on creation myths in the article did you expect people to look at the section on fundamentalism, or the section on creation myths that you added just an hour before posting? ] (]) 21:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose'''. Step away from consensus (indeed, coming full-circle from established consensus, which has been a war of POV-pushers from the beginning: first, "Creation according to Genesis", then "myth", then "narrative", next we'll have "Beginning of the Universe", and after that, "Bullshit fable"), unnecessarily inflammatory and contentious, not adhering to WP:UCN (as many, if not most, of the sources on this page use the term "narrative" - the use of "myth" or "narrative" depends on whether one is using something written by a comparative religionist/mythologist or Biblical scholar, and Biblical scholars tend to write the most, and most of the reliable sources, on Biblical topics). I'm sure I listed a few more objections up there, so just hit CTRL+F and type my name in. ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 19:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support move''' - There is not only the question as to whether it is referred to as a "creation myth" in Biblical studies, but also the question as to whether it is called a "creation myth" in terms of studies of creation myths, like in te ''Encyclopedia of Creation Myths'' , where it quite obviously is. Also, I note that there are several individuals who today worship in the tradition of Norse mythology (see ]) and old Greco-Roman mythology, as I remember a piece on the BBC during the Athens Olympics about practitioners of the old Greco-Roman religion, which is currently illegal in Greece. There are also several revivals of old Egyptian religion. However, we do describe their beliefs under the general heading "mythology." I can see no particular reason why this individual case requires different treatment. ] (]) 21:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::John, I can indeed point out a bona fide distinction. It seems the only relevant statements we have from the practitioners of these tiny neopagan revivals, are like those of ], which specifically states that they officially consider the Norse sagas of Thor, etc. to be "myths" (meaning NOT historically or literally true, btw) and that they specifically do *not* object to this characterization. See the distinction? ] (]) 21:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:::While that does address one point of contention, it does not address the other. Yes, I acknowledge that there are any number of people who argue in some or all cases that some "myths" are true. However, as has been pointed out immediately below, existing policy specifically includes the word "myth" as an example in the relevant policy, and I can see no reason yet given why that policy should not apply in this case. ] (]) 21:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I've seen only three arguments against this proposal: 1) The claim that readers may confuse the formal and informal sense of the word. This is explicitly handled in ], using "myth" as the example of policy. 2) The claim that the literature most often avoids "creation myth". This assertion has not been adequately supported with sources. SudoGhost presented a long list of sources using ''creation myth''. As Dougweller points out, many of those avoiding "creation myth" are written from a Christian POV exclusively, not in a dispassionate, purely academic style. 3) The claim that the term "creation myth", even when written in an academic sense, is needlessly offensive to some readers. Per ] and ], this argument is explicitly against policy. Lisa's poor behavior is an additional cause for concern. Based on the remaining arguments presented, it appears consensus supports the move, and I see no reason not to concur with that consensus. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 21:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Weak Oppose''' for now. I don't think the rename brings us any closer to solving the problems at hand. I still think a consensus could be reached by slightly tweaking the wording of the opening sentence. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.5pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 21:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
== This article contains bias towards critical scholarship ==
:Agreed, changing the name is only going to compound the problem and lead to additional edit warring. The lede needs to be repaired to eliminate the questionable wording. ] (]) 05:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
===Arbitrary header #1===
*'''Support'''. ''Genesis'' 1-2 is by a "creation myth." The ] article explains the traditional attitude that Christianity has sacred "narratives" while other (esp. polytheistic) religions have false "myths." As long as Misplaced Pages uses "creation myth" for all cultures and religions except one, it will remain inconsistent and religiocentric. ] (]) 00:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
This article fails at ], because it presents contested assertions as facts, namely the conclusions of ] regarding Genesis. As an article in the category 'Religious cosmologies', such statements ought to be presented neutrally. In addition, many biblical scholars (generally those who are not critical scholars) would reject those statements anyway.
::It might be worth adding that section to this page. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 00:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The leading critical scholar Bart Ehrman has written on this issue (https://ehrmanblog.org/how-do-we-know-what-most-scholars-think/),
*'''Support move'''. We should not give Christian creation myths special treatment; article titles should be ]. ~ ] (]) 05:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
{{talkquote|'Then what does it mean to say that “most” scholars hold one view or another? It always depends. If you mean “most scholars total” then you would have to include fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. And I frankly don’t know the proportion of evangelical to non-evangelical scholars in the country. That’s why I do not say (or at least try not to say) that “most” scholars think x, y, or z, unless I’m sure that even evangelicals agree on the point (for example, whether the woman taken in adultery was originally in the Gospel of John). What I do say is what most “critical” scholars think, and when I say that, I’m usually pretty sure what I’m talking about.'}}
*'''Support'''. Per Jess et al. The "narrative" is most accurately defined as but one of the many "creation myths" in existance. ] (]) 05:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
My proposed additions below (in bold), reflect Ehrman's practice. They would not only meet the expectation of ], but they would be informative to readers in demonstrating that the qualified statements originated in critical scholarship, rather than scholarship in general.
Objection courtesy of ]: These additions should not be made because the opposing (traditional/conservative/evangelical) views are fringe, that is, they are marginalised in reliable sources (]). ] states that 'Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.'
*'''Oppose''' until I can see an itemized list that myth outnumbers narrative in use, not only academic. --] (]) 06:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
::What sort of request is that? You must realise that such a list is not possible, or is that the point here? And what is this ''"not only academic"'' statement? But it turns out you can be offered something even better - a reliable source claiming exactly what everyone here ''for'' the move has been saying. Per someone else's comment above: in ]'s book ''Christian Mythology'' (page 22), he notes that in contemporary Christianity ''myths in the Bible would now be admitted by nearly everyone including probably all Roman Catholics and a majority of Protestants"''. He goes on to list this creation myth as an example. Furthermore, the Encyclopedia Britannica (the closest thing to a comparable publication to Misplaced Pages you can ask for) also labels this a creation myth. ] (]) 06:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
::: It's a perfectly reasonable request. The academicians seems to be disturbing the greatest amount of fecal matter, but if you'd rather just limit it to academicians not already listed here. You see, I fear that the list we have is incomplete because those who may not use the term would likely be already excluded. It's not because they're bad authors, only that they offer a contrary view. We already know Waltke's position and I'm sure that there are many others. So perhaps a better way to have phrased the term would have been "academicians from religious studies rather than religious studies or other branches of anthropology". --] (]) 06:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I get post-1980 English-language Google Book hits for "genesis creation myth", for "genesis creation narrative", for "genesis creation account", and for "genesis creation story". Doukhan's ''The Genesis Creation Story: Its Literary Structure'' (1978) is a widely cited scholarly work on this subject. The word "myth" may suggest the beliefs of a dead religion, as in "Greek myths" and so forth. It seems that the overwhelming majority of writers on this subject wish to avoid suggesting that Genesis is part of such a belief system. How can we justify "myth" when there are at least three other names that are more common? ] (]) 07:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC) '''P.S.''' ''"Biblical creation story" OR "Biblical story of creation"'' looks like the winner as far as common name goes, with post-1980 hits. ] (]) 18:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
::See ] and ]. ] also applies here - higher numbers doesn't mean higher quality. Your argument also doesn't address the fact that "myth" is one term used in ] to demonstrate the policy. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 07:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
::Using search results in this way ''in general'' is not a reliable way of determining what is actually the ''common name'' for something. ''In particular'', those who believe the Genesis creation myth to be ''literally'' true are a '''vocal minority''', and as such, the search results do not accurately reflect usage by academics, or by society in general. For similar reasons, arguments about ''narrative'' being a better ] are also flawed, because they do not reflect a dispassionate neutral view.--] (]) 09:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - So far, three eighths of those responding have ''opposed'' the move, in most cases directly contradicting the policy at ]. One attempts an equivocation fallacy regarding the use of ''fundamentalism''. One employs a slippery slope argument about some eventual hypothetical name for the article. Another goes ] in an attempt to claim that the policy-supported title is not neutral. It is clear that there will never be a complete ''consensus'' on the matter; however, the majority of editors are in favour of complying with the relevant policy.--] (]) 10:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' - yes, it is a myth, but what's the reason for renaming the text? What is wrong with the word narrative? Is it wrong to call this biblical text a narrative? Should all old literature be renamed according to the same lines? I think fiction should be treated as fiction. ] (]) 17:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Because Misplaced Pages strives to be accurate and neutral, "neutral" meaning that we follow what the sources say. The sources call it a creation myth, so that's what we're supposed to call it. If you really want to know why we should change the name of the article then start reading at the top of this RFC and make your way to the bottom. It's been explained in depth by multiple editors. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 21:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Noformation—''"myth"'' is a characterization and it is gratuitous. The term ''"myth"'' strongly debunks veracity. As an encyclopedia we should aim to maintain an agnostic orientation to material involving beliefs other than scientific or more objective beliefs in general. Some segments of academia indeed may be anti-religious. An encyclopedia need not follow in the faulty footsteps of some segments of academia. We have adequate language in the more bland terms ''"narrative"'' and even ''"story".'' We are writing for a broad spectrum of readers. Arguably even academia should be avoiding ] There is nothing special about the term ''"myth".'' It is not as if some additional piece of information were conveyed by the word ''"myth"'' as opposed to the more bland terms ''"narrative"'' or ''"story".'' Furthermore—there is a proper place for the introduction of the term ''"myth"'' to this article—that is in the body of the article. We are discussing the proper placement of the term; not whether or not it should appear in this article. My argument is simply that it does not belong in the title. I don't even think the word ''"myth"'' should be found in the lead of this article. I think an explanation of the use of the word ''"myth"'' in relation to the material treated in this article should be introduced in the body of the article. ] (]) 22:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::It is specifically theologians who are using the term myth, not a bunch of scientists. Again, your opinion about how things ought to be is not relevant - you're ignoring the fundamental pillar of WP when you say that we should ignore what the sources are saying and do what bus stop thinks is right (or anyone else for that matter). I recognize your name so I know you've been here long enough to have read NPOV, and I'm guessing you've been here long enough to know that NPOV literally means that we are neutral as editors towards what the sources say. You may think it's gratuitous - this is your opinion. You may think that WP should eschew objective statements in favor of agnosticism but this is also your opinion. Your opinions are not in line with the policies of this encyclopedia. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 22:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::: Disagree. Theologians are in the department of biblical studies while these people are in the department of religious studies and are religious anthropologists. They are studying people not God. --] (]) 22:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Either way, they are still the ones whose opinions are assigned weight; not yours, not mine, not Bus Stop's or anyone else here. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 22:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::: Agreed! --] (]) 23:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Noformation, I don't question that it's a myth, I question why it is not a narrative. You have to describe why it is wrong to call it a narrative before we start to discuss what to call it instead. You want the change, so you are the one who should explain this. So please explain: Why is it wrong to call it a narrative? ] (]) 08:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Response: In Ehrman's blog post, he states,
*'''Comment''' I agree with Jess, Jeffro and others above that there appears to be consensus to move this article based on the strength of arguments put forward. And surely I cannot be the only editor who feels somewhat uncomfortable that this discussion reflects ]. Why should the Judeo-Christian creation myth by given special exemption over a standard naming practice found elsewhere, as noted above by many editors? If this (straightforward) move should not be achievable after this, I suggest we find a better venue for the discussion, especially since it has ramifications for a host of articles (Islam, Indigenous American belief systems, etc…). Further, since interest in and study of creation accounts are often undertaken comparatively, are we not artificially separating this debate? Perhaps we should set up a wider RFC and solicit feedback from editors who work across all of our articles on different creation myths. If we cannot form consensus here for naming Genesis a creation myth, it will only be a result of an accumulated POV grounded in biblical belief; that seems unacceptable given the larger (and uncontroversial) naming conventions we apply to articles that detail the equivalent myths of other cultures and belief systems. ] (]) 10:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
{{talkquote|'I do not at all discount what conservative evangelical scholars such as Bock and Keener have to say. (They are smart people and they know a lot about biblical studies.) As a critical scholar myself, I believe in listening to all sides and weighing the evidence to reach a decision – whatever that decision happens to be – i.e. whether it supports a traditional Christian view (about Ephesians, or John, or the dats of NT writings) or not.'}}
::Requested moves can last up to 7 days though I don't doubt this will be closed before that. Consensus seems pretty strong for the move and I'll be surprised if that's not how it's closed. Still, we need to be patient and allow for community input. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 10:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Thus, it appears that an authority does regard evangelical views as worthy of legitimation through comparison to accepted scholarship. Therefore, my proposed additions would not violate ].
::Isn't Misplaced Pages's Systemic Bias that of Western, well-educated, atheist or agnostic, white males? Alexa says this site "severely over-represents" those with postgraduate degrees, and to indulge in a bit of ], most studies linking religion and education have found that those with postgraduate degrees are less religious. So, may it be the risk isn't that this is going to be "a bunch of Biblical POV", but that it will reflect the systemic bias of the levels of over- and under-representation of certain cohorts? Note: both sides are currently attempting ] and ] (repeatedly thumping on a guideline/policy is the same as repeatedly quoting a Biblical verse, for analogy, and repeatedly misinterpreting it is, mutatis mutandis, the same). ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 21:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
:::It's really not the same. For one, we follow policy on WP but we don't follow the bible. So while quoting Revelations as an argument to delete an article would go nowhere, appealing to ] would go somewhere. Secondly, I'll quote from ] "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in ''policy, sources, and common sense''", emphasis mine. The argument for changing the title to "myth" is based entirely on policy, sourcing and dare I say common sense (it is, after all a creation myth) and to say that it hasn't been explained and just asserted blindly is just false. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 21:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Argumentum ad auctoritas is argumentum ad auctoritas whether you're quoting the Bible or a Misplaced Pages guideline. As far as that goes, I recall reading a policy/guideline/essay that people quote with authority as "consensus can change": Wiki is as Wiki does . Type the various terms, "myth", "narrative", "account", etc. in to Google Book or Google Scholar for a rough academic consensus. And, to clarify, my essential thrust of meaning in saying both sides are making proof by assertion, is that each camp is talking over the other. ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 23:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::I'm certainly not trying to talk over anyone and I apologize if that's how I'm coming off. I will admit to a certain level of frustration on this page; most of the oppose votes are completely ignoring that we have an established policy that deals specifically with this situation and instead users are asserting their opinions on the word "myth." NPOV is something that should be taken very seriously and it just doesn't seem to matter to people while in some other cases there is a demonstrable misunderstanding of the policy coupled with a resistance to being corrected on said misunderstanding. Regarding google, another editor brought this up and I responded with ] and ]. For a variety of reasons raw search engine results are not good indicators of notability or quality. I think I miss your meaning on ], can you elaborate please? ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 23:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' and if this doesn't get moved, maybe we can move all other creation myths to creation narrative? There is no reason to make a distinction for christianity here.--] (]) 14:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
*:Each creation story should under its most common English-language name. These are not things that naturally match. I see no advantage to giving them artificially matching names. ] (]) 15:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
*::The bone of contention seems to me to be the amount of usage in the English language as a whole of each term. Unfortunately, we deal in the English language, and the greater majority of people using that language are Judeo-Christian-Islamic-Bahai to some degree or other, and there are comparatively small but significant groups within that tradition which take this story as fact. That may have, in many cases, caused writers of popular works, particularly of a religious kind, to perhaps have chosen the religiously more acceptable (to fundamentaists) word "narrative" or similar to "myth". Unfortunately, I am not sure whether we should take the possible bias of popular authors, including popular theology works and such, as being a significant factor in determining which words we use here. ] (]) 15:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' due to the nature of the word "myth" as the term ] seems to be a better, more neutral term than "myth" ''both'' in its academic usage and that in popular culture (although the latter does not matter, anyways). It seems that the academic term "narrative" is widely used secularly both by secular scholars and those with religious ties and without -- I cannot say the same for "myth", which suggests that the term's usage amongst scholars is influenced predominantly, though not necessarily always, by bias. <i style="text-shadow:lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</i><i style="text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</i> 15:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', you don't have to call it a myth to know this is a mythical story. Narrative is a more neutral term, so let it be. Also, when you talk about a 'myth' you usually refer to a more orally transitioned story through the generations, but the Bible is written literature. ] (]) 16:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
::Perhaps I've misunderstood you... but your argument appears to be that the term ''creation myth'' is both accurate and verifiable, but we shouldn't include it because we should expect readers to know it's a "mythical story" without us saying so. We don't just make assumptions about our reader's knowledge like that. Our aim is to comprehensively describe the topic to someone unfamiliar with the subject. Regarding your last point, a ] is not necessarily oral, as the article describes. If you're talking about its informal use, then ] applies. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 19:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Of course, everyone who knows even a little about Christianity (and most people do, regardless of their own believes, as it is the most widespread religion in the world) knows that the Bible is the holy text of Christianity. Everyone who knows something about religions, knows that religious texts of this kind include myths and parables which are not meant to be taken literary. So you don't have to point out that it is a myth. The Bible is great literature and holds many good moral standards (and some acctually not so good) but noone takes the Book of Genesis as a description of something that acctually happened. The tale of Adam and Eve is a moral parable. So why do you have to point out that it is not to be taken literaly? And more importantly, as you are arguing for a change: What, exactly, is wrong with the word narrative in this context? ] (]) 08:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support ''' - as per {{cite book|author=David Adams Leeming|title=The Oxford companion to world mythology|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=kQFtlva3HaYC&pg=PA50|year=2005|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-515669-0|page=50}}.
:::And think that "The Genesis creation myth is the narrative found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis that describes how the world was created." is a good opening ... ] (]) 17:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - 'Myth' would be a fine word if it weren't loaded. Honestly, I think 'tale' or 'story' would be more NPOV than 'myth' or 'narrative' because it explains precisely what it is in an NPOV manner. '''] ]]''' 20:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
::Have you read over ] which specifically states not to avoid using established academic terminology and specifically uses "myth" as the example to demonstrate the policy? ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 20:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Noformation—I also find a guideline concerning ] I find reference made to ''"value-laden labels".'' Aren't we discussing whether or not the word ''"myth"'' is a ''"value-laden label"?'' ] (]) 21:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
::::We're not discussing the word "myth". We're discussing "creation myth". ] (]) 21:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Possibly. However, policies take priority over guidelines, and it has already been said that there is an extant policy, ], which specifically includes the word "myth" in its text, seemingly discussing exactly this sort of situation. ] (]) 21:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
::::{{ec}}The MOS doesn't trump NPOV, especially as NPOV explicitly discusses the word myth, and the MOS does not. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 21:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Beyond that, saying that we shouldn't use a word used by the majority of sources because editors think it's loaded is the ''exact opposite'' of NPOV. The whole point of our policy on neutrality is that editor opinion is not relevant, only the sources matter. If the sources called it a jkabndjfnj then we call it a jkabndjfnj. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 21:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::Noformation— would be preferable to ''"myth".'' Unfortunately we are missing a policy that might caution us against using gratuitously inflammatory language when other perfectly adequate language is available. ] (]) 21:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Which policy are you referring to, exactly? The page you pointed out before, dealing with contentious labels, is a part of the Manual of Style, and all of the MOS is a guideline. There does seem to be one policy involved, ], and policies take priority over guidelines. If you were referring to some other policy page, it would be very useful if you indicated exactly which one. ] (]) 21:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::You presented a guideline based on the manual of style, RNPOV is policy and NOTCENSORED is a policy. It is not gratuitously inflammatory language, it is the language used by theologians. It is not our job as editors to second guess sources and decide by community fiat what is and isn't "appropriate," it's our job to be neutral to the sources. "jkabndjfnj" would be preferable ''to you'', but you or I don't matter - the sources matter. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 21:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. "Myth" doesn't mean "fiction", and "creation myth" is by far the common usage in academic sources. ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 21:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Too many people here are basing their arguments on the wrong policy. ] is not aimed at article titles, but rather at how we deal with religious topics in the text of the article. As long as we don't shy away from a correct and neutral use of the academic term "creation myth" within the text of the article, the title should remain as it is. And there is no good reason to change the title based on current policy. For every non-adherent who chooses to describe the story in terms of mythology, you will find adherents who defend the position that the story should be labeled as or divinely inspired history. Narrative is about the most neutral and natural term you can find in common usage in reliable sources, from academic circles both within Christianity and without. No one argues that it was ''not'' written as narrative (at least no one who has bothered to study the text), but plenty argue that it was ''not'' written as myth. Neither term is going to be totally neutral, because it's not an inherently neutral topic. ] 01:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::] applies to the title as much as the rest of the article. We do not gain the ability to "avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources" just because it is in the title. Almost every source I encountered that described it as anything but a creation myth was a reliable sources writing solely from a literal Christian POV, not as an '']'' reliable source, which on Misplaced Pages does not take precedence over independent sources. Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint. Also, a very quick search on Gbooks shows that there are indeed groups of people and reliable sources that both argue that Genesis (either parts of it, or as a whole) is not written as narrative. - ]] 10:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Very strongly oppose'''. This has been discussed a lot already. "Narrative" was decided on. It is neutral. Period. End of discussion. ] ] 02:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
**Neutrality is not the only criterion to be considered; we must also consider what terminology is used in a preponderance of sources. ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 02:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
***], and it appears it has. It would be helpful if you advanced an actual argument against the proposal, since empty ] don't carry any weight. Besides which, "neutrality" means properly reflecting the weight of sources, and the sources use "creation myth" quite a bit. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 02:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::: Quantify, in percentage, "quite a bit". What percentage exclusively use creation myth, exclusively creation narrative, and what percentage a mix of both. Without that, "quit a bit" is just a ]. --] (]) 02:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
''Lead (Line 6)'' '''According to most ] scholars,''' The authors of the Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes from ] and ], but adapted them to their unique ]. '''Critical models of the composition of the ] (the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with ]) view the first major comprehensive draft as having''' been composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE (the ] source)''',''' '''then''' later expanded by other authors (the ]) into a work very like Genesis as known today. The two sources '''are''' identified in the creation narrative: Priestly and Jahwistic. The combined narrative is '''considered''' a critique of the ] of creation:
:::::Feel free to look through the list of sources presented above by SudoGhost. I referenced that list in my support, as have others. "Percentage" means very little, and is a poor reflection of ], for much the same reason as ]. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 04:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::: Read as: "no, we'd rather throw around weasel words than actually quantify our statements". Percentage is a great way to quantify it, but rather than wikilawyer your way around it, find your own way to quantify its use. Until then, "quite a bit" is weasel words. In short, the list that the cabal have limited this article to may use the term frequently, but they don't reflect all academic use and likely not the majority of academic use. Secular sources may prefer the term, but theological sources don't. I can show you secular bias in acadmic work, but you'll probably come up with some source that you prefer to discredit it. --] (]) 05:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
''Composition: Sources (Line 20)'' Although tradition attributes ] to ], most critical scholars hold that it, together with the following four books (making up what Jews call the ] and biblical scholars call the Pentateuch), is "a composite work, the product of many hands and periods." '''The creation narrative is analysed as consisting of''' two separate accounts drawn from different sources. The first account in Genesis 1:1–2:4 is from what scholars call the ] (P). The second account, which takes up the rest of Genesis 2, is largely from the ] source (J).
:::::::Look, the best I can do is provide you with sources. . A lot of them. Some of them are very high quality. I've presented sources, policies, and explanations, but all you're doing is throwing around assertions about academic bias and secular conspiracies. I'll have no part in that. If one really high quality source says that the prominent academic view is one thing, and a couple low quality sources say something else, we go with the high quality source. We do that even though it's "outnumbered" by the low quality ones. That's why a percentage is useless. I don't know where you're expecting me to come up with a percentage anyway, so the request is ridiculous. Why don't you give me a percentage, and source it please. Until then, please stop accusing me of wikilawyering, and bad faith, and belligerence. It's getting really old. I've discussed my reasons in depth, provided sources and policies readily and civilly any time I've been asked. That you disagree with other editors is no reason to treat them poorly. Please give legitimate reasons for rejecting the sources presented, or move along. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 06:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::: Unfortunately, your best isn't good enough to remove the weasel from the words. That's just Misplaced Pages for you.
:::::::: I notice that Waltke's material still hasn't been incorporated. --] (]) 07:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::We do not go by "percentages", they aren't an indication of the reliability or the independence of the source used, nor do they allow for weight to properly be expressed. You're asking for something that is less than worthless on Misplaced Pages. As for the misguided weasel word assertion, "weasel word" on Misplaced Pages applies to vague statements without attribution in which readers cannot properly assess the statement for themselves. As these sources have been provided, they aren't weasel words just because you disagree. - ]] 16:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Opppose''' per Til, Ἀλήθεια, etc. "Narrative" is not incorrect and has a significantly less negative connotation. Whilst the denotation of "myth" in its secondary sense is applicable; common usage of the term is for its primary purpose which would create an appearance of ]. With regard to ], it is not the case, in my opinion, that "myth" would serve better than "narrative" especially is creation myth ''itself'' is defines as "A creation myth is a symbolic '''narrative'''…" in its wiki article. As the terms are equivalent, there is no loss for using "narrative" over "myth" and only gain. -- ] (]) 07:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I wonder if those who ''Oppose'' (or ''Strongly Oppose'' or ''Very Strongly Oppose'') on the supposed ground that ''myth'' is 'not neutral' or 'loaded' feel just as strongly about ''all'' the other ''creation myth'' articles that have this same label. It is the correct term, and the policy (]) explictly states that the correct academic term should be used. Additionally, though some people might be offended, the ''correct'' use of the term—again, per the '''policy'''—is '''not''' ''unnecessary'' offense. Editors should also remember this is ] (and ''very strongly opposed'' doesn't count for extra points). It is valid ''arguments'' that will determine the wording, not simply the strength with which people feel 'opposed'. So far, there is no compelling policy-based reason to not use the correct academic term, consistent with comparitive articles about creation myths.--] (]) 09:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
''Composition: Structure (Line 27)'' <strike>Consistency was evidently not seen as essential to storytelling in ancient Near Eastern literature.</strike> The overlapping stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are '''often regarded as''' contradictory but also complementary, with the first (the Priestly story) concerned with the creation of the entire ] while the second (the Jahwist story) focuses on man as moral agent and cultivator of his environment. The highly regimented seven-day narrative of Genesis 1 features an ] God who creates a god-resembling humanity, while the one-day creation of Genesis 2 uses a simple linear narrative, a God who can fail as well as succeed, and a humanity which is not god-like but is punished for attempting to become god-like''', although not all scholars share these interpretations.''' Even the order and method of creation differs. "Together, this combination of parallel character and contrasting profile point to the different origin of materials in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, however elegantly they have now been combined." '''These differences motivate critical scholars to conclude that consistency was not seen as essential to storytelling in ancient Near Eastern literature. (Note ''b'': Levenson 2004)''' ] (]) 16:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:*So far, there are no compelling arguments against the use of the word narrative. What is wrong with narrative? Myth might be right, but if narrative is equally right there is no reason for a move. ] (]) 10:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::It's not a matter of right it's a matter of sourcing. NPOV states that we as editors make decisions based upon a preponderance of the sources, not on our opinions. You may think that narrative and myth are equivalent but until you're a theologian or religious anthropologist and you publish regarding their equivalency your opinion is irrelevant (as is mine, as is that of other editors). ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 02:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:I agree with you. The current article does violate WP:NPOV by presenting contested scholarly interpretations as facts. Your proposed edits would better align with NPOV by clarifying that these views are held by "most critical scholars" rather than presenting their conclusions as undisputed facts. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, "biased statements of opinion can be presented only with inline attribution."
* '''Comment again''' Lisa appears to be trying to bypass the consensus that is building here by changing the policy: . More comments are welcome. ] (]) 10:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:WP:DUE is also relevant here. While we shouldn't give undue weight to "minority" views, we also shouldn't present "majority" views as universal facts. Your proposal strikes a better balance. The WP:SCHOLARSHIP guideline encourages presenting multiple scholarly viewpoints when they exist as well. ]] 21:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose''': I have seen reliable sources use both "narrative" and "myth" to describe the Genesis creation stories. My recollection is that I've encountered the words "account", "cosmology" and "story" more often than either the current or proposed titles in my own reading (and that applies as well to other creation stories). Usages from good sources range across the board, and I would be wary of claiming any consensus for a single term. I just do not see the proposed change as much of an improvement, while agreeing that the current title is less than satisfactory, and thus my weak oppose. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::I'm unlikely to respond in any detail today due to some horrible chemotherapy. But, and I don't mean to be rude, both of you are very new editors and I'm not convinced you understand our policy. More tomorrow if I feel well enough. ] ] 06:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Yup, ], ], ], ], ]. And please read ]. Misplaced Pages is not a venue for ventilating pseudohistory. What is fine and dandy as ] could be utter crap as ]. ] (]) 08:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::::It is well to recognize that the dominant viewpoint among scientists is not the only one. There are various minority viewpoints, represented by qualified scientists, but these viewpoints are largely suppressed by majority voices, by active persecution, and by selective reporting in the media.
::::Poythress, Vern S.. Interpreting Eden: A Guide to Faithfully Reading and Understanding Genesis 1-3 (p. 21). Crossway. Kindle Edition. ]] 10:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::We aren't going to be using something published by Crossway as a guiding light. This is an encyclopedia, not a campus bible study. ] (]) 02:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Amen! ;-) ] (]) 03:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you for the links. My proposal does not include any additions of content, so I believe the charge of 'ventilating pseudohistory' is irrelevant. I merely proposed attribution to certain claims which are both controversial and contested in biblical scholarship, and do not represent a consensus of experts, even within critical scholarship (cf. Ehrman). ] (]) 11:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm no theologian, but an experienced Wikipedian, and to me the most important point here is that Misplaced Pages is a mainstream encyclopedia. ], "the use of critical analysis to understand and explain the Bible without appealing to the supernatural" is the mainstream academic approach to the Bible. That's the reason I reverted ], where they added phrasing like "'''According to mainstream biblical scholars''', the authors of the Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes, etc" to the previous "The authors of the Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes, etc", added "'''most''' biblical scholars" to "biblical scholars" and turned the phrasing "The creation narrative consists of two separate accounts" into "Scholars analyse the creation narrative as consisting of two separate accounts". All of these changes tend to create a false balance between mainstream scholars (again, ]) and the ] and similar theories. It unduly legitimizes the documentary hypothesis. {{u|Violoncello10104}} and {{u|ViolanteMD}}, I'm not saying your use of the word "neutral", as in "As an article in the category 'Religious cosmologies', such statements ought to be presented neutrally", is wrong (and it's very, very common amongst new users). But its implication that Misplaced Pages should not take sides between non-religious and religious criticism goes completely against Misplaced Pages's policy ], which may be designated a ]. I quote the policy: "'''Avoid stating facts as opinions.''' Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice, for example {{xt|the sky is blue}} not {{!xt| believes ]}}." We ''should'' actually present the mainstream consensus as undisputed facts. ] | ] 08:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC).
::::It is called "neutral point of view", but a proper name would be "normative point of view". Like a civics teacher does not teach his/her own opinions, nor a mixed bag of all opinions, but the normative views of the society. ] (]) 09:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thank you both for your input on this matter. I appreciate the references to various Misplaced Pages policies, but I believe there's still a crucial point being overlooked.
:::::I'm not advocating for the promotion of pseudohistory or fringe theories. I fully agree that Misplaced Pages should rely on mainstream academic sources and not be a platform for marginal or discredited ideas.
:::::However, there's a critical distinction we need to make when dealing with religious topics. The purpose of an encyclopedic article about a religious concept or belief is primarily to explain what that belief entails, not to debate its historical accuracy or scientific validity.
:::::When we describe what Christians believe about the Trinity or what Muslims believe about the Night Journey, we're not making historical claims. We're representing the content of a belief system. This is not pseudohistory.
:::::I agree that "What is fine and dandy as theology could be utter crap as history." But that's precisely why we need to clearly delineate between theological claims and historical ones. A statement like "Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead" is not a historical claim; it's an accurate representation of a Christian belief.
:::::While I understand the importance of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MAINSTREAM, we must apply these carefully in religious contexts. Presenting mainstream academic criticism of religious beliefs as the primary content, rather than the beliefs themselves, could be seen as violating NPOV by unduly favoring one perspective (academic) over another (believer's).
:::::I'm not suggesting we ignore academic or critical perspectives. But they should not overshadow or replace the primary explanation of what the belief actually entails.
:::::Most readers coming to an article about a religious concept are likely seeking to understand what that concept means within its religious context, not primarily its academic critiques. It originated in its religious context.
:::::I'm advocating for a nuanced approach that accurately represents religious beliefs as they are understood by adherents, clearly distinguishes between claims of faith and historical/scientific claims and includes relevant academic perspectives and criticisms where appropriate, without letting these dominate the main explanation of the belief.
:::::This approach, I believe, better serves our readers and more accurately fulfills the role of an encyclopedia in explaining religious concepts. I hope this clarifies my position and opens up a constructive dialogue on how we can best handle these sensitive topics. Or you could just call me "too new to know better" again and not address my actual points. ]] 10:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{Tqq|Most readers coming to an article about a religious concept are likely seeking to understand what that concept means within its religious context, not primarily its academic critiques.}} I don't agree that this is likely, and think that most readers consult Misplaced Pages for mainstream academic consensus on their topics of interest. Misplaced Pages is built upon mainstream scholarship.{{pb}}I might be biased here because I have a lot of experience with textual history, and early Biblical narratives are super interesting in critical literature studies.{{pb}}As an aside, I do identify as a person of faith, and I never edit in the topic area of my own faith. It's upsetting, unwinnable, and contrary to the principles of Misplaced Pages, whether I like it or not. That's good, in that it makes the project stronger with respect to the terms on which it is constituted. We should all avoid editing in areas where we feel a strong emotional response, or possess experiential knowledge that is not grounded in published sources informed by Western / scientific ways of knowing.{{pb}}Content policies do in fact stipulate that academic and critical perspectives form the bulk of our prose, and overshadow religious teachings. Placing published mainstream scholarship on the same level as religious beliefs is ]. NPOV does not mean "median point of view", nor "attributing to named individuals everything disagreed with by anyone". We don't really have special carveouts for religious topics. We still treat them as encyclopaedia topics.{{pb}}I'm sorry if you're feeling stung for being called out for rookie misunderstandings. I hope you stick around and continue learning how our community operates. Blessings, ] (]) 01:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::'I quote the policy: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice'
::::It seems to me that our disagreement lies in whether the non-critical claims in question are uncontested and uncontroversial, and not in whether fringe views should be given validity. If they are not uncontested and uncontroversial, then they ought to be attributed to a school of thought or scholar. In my original post, I gave Ehrman (a leading critical scholar) as an authority to determine this. He states, 'I do not say (or at least try not to say) that “most” scholars think x, y, or z, unless I’m sure that even evangelicals agree on the point (for example, whether the woman taken in adultery was originally in the Gospel of John). What I do say is what most “critical” scholars think'. It appears that Ehrman regards matters in which critical and traditional scholars disagree to be controversial, and thus will ''attribute'' a view to a school of thought, not presenting it as if it were an uncontested fact. Given this authoritative judgment, we should accordingly change our view of what is mainstream and fringe, or controversial and uncontroversial.
::::I also agree with @]'s reply to you which has some great arguments, such as how the current article is misleading to people who are interested in what traditional Christians/Jews believe, since it presents critical assertions (e.g. Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic) without attribution as if they were uncontested by traditional scholars. ] (]) 11:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tqred|we should accordingly change our view of what is mainstream and fringe, or controversial and uncontroversial}}—this talk page isn't meant for changing ]s.
:::::About the Documentary Hypothesis: it is no longer the only game in town, but not because mainstream scholars are now more inclined with biblicist scholars.
:::::] says that the Bible is historically accurate, despite the actual historical and archaeological record. Therefore, when biblicist scholars write the history of the Bible, they are writing pseudohistory. ] (]) 11:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I appreciate your point that the Documentary Hypothesis is "no longer the only game in town." This actually reinforces the argument for a more nuanced presentation. If there are multiple scholarly perspectives within mainstream Biblical criticism, shouldn't we aim to represent that diversity of thought? Maybe we could:
::::::# Present the traditional religious understanding of the text held by those who are of the faith
::::::# Introduce mainstream critical scholarship, noting that the Documentary Hypothesis was once dominant and that there are now multiple scholarly approaches within Biblical criticism
::::::# Briefly outline areas of agreement/disagreement
::::::This approach would adhere to existing policies and provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of both the religious significance and the current state of academic discourse around this topic. ]] 11:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I was not at all proposing a change of policy. I was saying that the current application of the policy is incorrect given what an authority in biblical scholarship says about what is controversial and uncontroversial in his field. ] (]) 12:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::To your second point, there's a difference between saying:
::::::# "The Bible is historically accurate in all details." (a Biblicist claim)
::::::# "Many Christians believe the Bible to be historically accurate." (a statement about religious belief)
::::::# "Archaeological and historical evidence supports some Biblical accounts while contradicting others." (a summary of scholarly historical research)
::::::My concern is that by presenting only critical scholarly views without clear attribution, we might inadvertently misrepresent the beliefs held by many religious adherents. I think I've stated this on other pages related to Christianity that we've run into one another on. ]] 12:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::"Many Christians believe the Bible to be historically accurate." —true, but misleading: ] does not claim that the Bible is historically accurate. ] (]) 12:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::That's why I used the word "many". ]] 12:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I hope you feel better. ]] 10:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:::@]@] Ok. Two ] disagree with you, me and Bishonen, and together we have made over 300,000 edits. A main reason we were elected was that our knowledge of policy and guidelines was good enough that when editors consistently broke them we could block them with confidence. tgeorgescu had over 50,000 edits, many of them in this field. What are the odds that the two of you know more than we do? ] ] 10:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I respect your position and I'm sure you do know than me. I'm interested in your assessment of my argument. Quoting ], 'In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.' Please know that I am not quoting that to disrespect you or the others. I have an argument which is logical, in line with the current policies, with support from an expert. This was the basis for making this discussion topic. ] (]) 10:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::I got an eerie feeling that ChatGPT wrote your answers. ] (]) 10:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I get the feeling you don't know very well what a non-native English speaker sounds like. ]] 10:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Oh, I see they actually are a native speaker. My bad. I guess ChatGPT is cranking out material with obvious grammatical errors in it like this nowadays. Those pesky generative AI chat bots... ]] 11:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have never used AI to generate text. I guess you'll just have to trust me on that point. ] (]) 12:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::You are straying into personal attacks. ]. Please refrain from unconstructive "chatGPT" comments. You've been warned. ] (]) 14:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Hi, {{u|Just10A}}, I don't know it where to report it, but the phrasing and the arguments remembered me of ]. I admit that I could be mistaken, so they should not take offence. ] (]) 14:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::"I could be mistaken" following a direct personal attack is not a defense. Please just move on. These epic threads do little good. ] (]) 14:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I admit that I have conflated the two Viol-something. But in respect to one of them, it is not ], since it is highly likely at least one of their replies is AI-generated. I mean: if they did use ChatGPT (or something like that), and I accused them of using ChatGPT, it isn't a personal attack. It's just a fact pertaining to their edits. I cannot be blamed for noticing they did, nor for spilling the beans about it. ] (]) 16:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Agreed. Tests range from 0 to 99% AI. ] ] 16:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::The results I got from different scanners: 0%, 70%, 95%, 100% and 100% AI-written (I did not scan their username as included in the post). I'm not saying this is bulletproof, but it seems to confirm my intuition. I mean: people do not write like that. Especially when they're not writing official reports for the government. ] (]) 16:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Thank you for your post, it was most informative. Some people do in fact write like that. I've spent most of my life being told that I "talk funny". Thanks for that! ]] 08:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Why do you have to appeal to being more experienced and not a Misplaced Pages policy? ]] 08:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
{{od|:::}}
And the answer is that, despite your protestations, reliable historical research is done by critical scholars ''only.'' Other views may by ], but only critical scholars speak in the name of the mainstream academia and in the name of mainstream history. ] (]) 10:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::"due to some horrible chemotherapy" Don't take this as an insult Doug, but you are not as energetic as you were in your prime. Do you really want to spend your remaining time and energy in the never-ending dramas of Misplaced Pages's talk pages? They are probaby not beneficial to your state of mind. Personally, I often find myself contemplating the futility of reaching for a compromise through them. ] (]) 12:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:Your claim is overly restrictive and misrepresents academic diversity. "Critical scholars" aren't the sole arbiters of reliable historical research. Mainstream academia includes various methodologies and perspectives in Biblical studies. This stance contradicts Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy and could lead to biased articles. A more balanced approach would accurately represent the spectrum of scholarly opinion while maintaining standards for reliable sources. ]] 10:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. ] has been been cited many times in this RM, but this guideline has nothing to do with titling, and certainly doesn't override ]. As far as the references to mythology books go, this is a narrow field compared to Bible studies. In a Bible studies context, this subject is just "Creation". See '''' (p. 316), '''', '''', Browning's '''', and ''''. So the article should be titled '''Creation''' or '''Creation (Biblical)'''. ] (]) 11:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::Policy does not cease to apply when a title is considered. ], being one of the ], does indeed override ], however this is not relevant here. As far as the "Bible studies context", the article's subject is not "Genesis from a Christian perspective", or "Genesis as told in the Bible". The article's subject is not solely a Christian one, and as such we cannot name it as if it were. We ''especially'' cannot name it by only using primary sources; ignoring those that are independent of the article's subject would be a massive ] violation. - ]] 12:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::{{talk quote|From what I know, I'll agree that New Testament scholars may ''"often train as historians"'', but the problem is that some of the stuff you can get published as an NT scholar (in theological journals) would basically be laughed or booed off the stage if presented to a roomful of historians. That you even have such a thing as inerrantism in NT scholarship is indicative of the difference (because inerrantism is a downright anti-historical concept). I agree that '''not all''' of NT scholarship necessarily suffers from this problem, but it needs to be factored in when questions of "scholarly consensus" among NT scholars is cited. It simply has to be remembered that a consensus among NT scholars has at least some aspects of a consensus among theologians and is thus not directly equivalent to a consensus among historians, archaeologists or other academic fields. The problem is that such an adjustment would probably run counter to both Misplaced Pages policy on neutrality and fringe views, because the overwhelming majority of NT scholars are theologians and professing Christians (as the minority who aren't will be quick to point out). This is again a rather unsurprising consequence of both the nature of the field of study (believers are basically more likely to take up the study of their faith) and its tight connection to theology (I can't think of that many NT studies institutions which aren't run by Theology departments). Being that closely connected to theology also means that issues of controversy quickly becomes issues of faith and orthodoxy to a degree rarely found in other academic disciplines. ] (]) 20:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)}}
:::You don't have to be any particular religion to study the Bible. In fact, Jews are quite prominent in this field. Perhaps they call it "Torah studies," but it is the same field of study. They publish in ''Biblical Archaeological Review'' or whatever alongside the Christian scholars. I didn't cite any primary sources. The "subject is not...'Genesis as told in the Bible'"?? Do you realize that Genesis is a book of the Bible? It is not generally available as a separate item. ] (]) 13:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Sure it's "available as a separate item". "The Bible" is a collection of books, which, since the advent of the printing press, tend to be bound together in Christian usage. But that doesn't make it a single indivisible whole. ] (]) 13:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::We're all here at this talk page to obey the ], not to change them. ] (]) 10:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::The ] is not the only source in which Genesis exists, so we cannot base the title off of what adherents to ''one'' selection of ''one'' branch of traditions call it. By "Genesis outside of the bible" I was referring to the Christian Bible, which is what most people (]) mean when they say the Bible. ] is a primary source, and certainly not an ] one on Biblical topics. "Creation" is not the ], especially by independent reliable-sources. - ]] 13:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Dismissing all NT scholarship as unreliable is an overreach. Many NT scholars employ rigorous historical methods. The existence of some theologically-biased work doesn't invalidate the entire field.
:::Your argument seems to be an attempt to systematically exclude NT scholarship from Misplaced Pages under the guise of maintaining academic rigor. This approach would itself introduce significant bias. Misplaced Pages's goal should be to accurately capture the range of scholarly views, including mainstream historical perspectives and the diversity within NT scholarship. This would align with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE policies.
:::Any article discussing religious beliefs must also accurately describe what the believers actually believe. Failure to do so renders the article fundamentally flawed, misrepresentative, and potentially useless. Accurate representation of religious beliefs is crucial. Dismissing it as unimportant undermines the validity of the entire discussion, regardless of one's personal stance on religion. It's not our role to judge these beliefs, but to present them accurately.
:::Instead of blanket exclusion, we should critically evaluate sources, clearly attribute claims, and provide context for different scholarly approaches and beliefs. This maintains neutrality while acknowledging the field's complexities.
:::WP:RULES are meant to ensure comprehensive, balanced articles, not to exclude entire academic disciplines or misrepresent belief systems based on personal biases. ]] 10:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Are you using ChatGPT?
::::"Critical scholarship" means ], which is part and parcel of the ]. ] (]) 10:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::No, I'm not using ChatGPT but I noticed you also accused the other user commenting of the same thing. Interesting take from someone whose main refutations besides one-liners are just kopipe.
:::::Your definition of "critical scholarship" is overly narrow; it's not the only valid approach to Biblical studies. Misplaced Pages should represent the full spectrum of scholarly approaches, not just those focused on source criticism. This aligns with WP:NPOV and ensures comprehensive coverage of the field. ]] 10:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::If it sounds like the prose of a full professor, writing a paper for the government, who employed several proofreaders, then it is perhaps computer-generated.
::::::Also, some scholars may be ], but we don't cite them as they were mainstream historians.
::::::Purely theological exegesis is okay, but it does not count as ].
::::::An obvious point: if they don't abide by the historical method, they are not writing history. They may be writing theology or apologetics, but not history.
::::::If one wants to write history, there are shared rules and shared assumptions for doing so. There is certain stuff which historical research cannot deliver. It cannot say whether Jesus is God or whether Jesus got resurrected, since that is not a matter of historical record.
::::::There can be no evidence that Jesus is God and there can be no evidence that Jesus isn't God. That's not a matter predicated upon objective historical evidence.
::::::In mainstream history, the sentence "Jesus is God" does not have a truth value. It is neither true, nor false.
::::::If one is writing a historical paper, they cannot claim that Jesus is God, nor that Jesus isn't God. That would be utterly puerile.
::::::There are some very important questions, which nevertheless cannot be answered objectively. Pretending otherwise just makes the matter worse. Some stuff is just faith, not history. ] (]) 13:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I am an MD/PhD with a job in technical writing, but the real answer must be that I'm several teenagers inside of a trench coat using ChatGPT to generate my responses, and not that this article violates WP:NPOV. ]] 08:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::More to the point: despite its sophisticated prose, your argument is essentially a red herring. Since it does not use ]-based definitions of the terms, but English language dictionaries definitions.] (]) 13:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::::ChatGPT can produce inhumanely slick and professional answers, but it does not mean that ChatGPT understands the ] of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 10:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::The irony of this post is too much. ]] 08:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Great, more lack of good faith. You should just drop this, you aren't going to get your way. ] ] 09:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::We should refocus on the content and policies rather than making assumptions about intentions. Our focus should be on the quality and accuracy of contributions and evaluating edits. If there are specific policies you believe I've misinterpreted, I'm open to discussing them. Ideally something beyond just criticizing the way that I write.
:::::::Instead of telling me to "drop this," I think I'll reach out for help. In the mean time, I insist that we attribute information to the originating sources in order to make it plain where the information is coming from. ]] 09:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Reach out where exactly? Not to bring in more editors, that's ] ] ] 09:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::@] @]. I have made a post on the dispute resolution noticeboard with the agreement of ViolanteMD. I would just like an evaluation of my argument and the debate in general; https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Genesis_creation_narrative ] (]) 19:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
{{od|:::::::::}}
You can see more ChatGPT at Misplaced Pages at ]. ] (]) 21:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
===Arbitrary header #2===
::::::The same issue arise with the word "Genesis". In Hebrew, there is another word for it. So in that sense it can be considered a Christian word. But as with "Bible", it doesn't normally imply any particular POV. It is just a name, and it is used by people with with a wide variety of religious perspectives. '''' has an article entitled "Hebrew Bible," so the use of this word is not limited to a Christian context. You seem to be confused as to what a primary or independent source is, or least have a rather unique spin on this issue. The sourcing rules don't relate to titling anyway. ] (]) 20:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
] says:
::::::: '''Clarification''' While I understand your point, it's a bit confused. "Genesis" is an English word. It has different names in other Western (a.k.a. Christian-influenced) languages. Some are similar and some are not. However in Hebrew it goes by a different name as well, בְּרֵאשִׁית ,and its transliteration is used by adherents of Judaism who speak those languages. --] (]) 20:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
{{talkquote|All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.}}
If you want to present scholarship as "critical scholarship" or "mainstream scholarship," you'll also have to present an overview of the views of non-critical ('traditional', conservative Evangelical) scholarship on these matters. That's possible, akin to the overview at ], or (preferably) as a separate subsection, which is already there (but not very well written): ]. The question is: are those views significant? More precise: are they relevant as ''scholarly'' views, or as ''religious'' views? As religious views, a short explanation, in a section on religious views, would be: 'Conservative Evangelicals view the creation story as...'.
Without such an addition I also see no point in the attribution, except for the implication that it is 'just an opinion', or as a signal-word akin to "leftish" at India-related pages. ] - ] 04:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Contested points, copied from ], referring to and VC's comments:
*'''Support''' - mostly per Jess. Specifically, per ]'s ''Reading the Bible Again for the First Time'' (since I ''just'' finished the chapter in which he discusses the creation stories, uses "myth" and explains why it's the appropriate term). The last time this was discussed, when it was moved ''from'' myth to this title, I was on the fence and I didn't participate. But given the arguments here, and after looking around at academic usage and reading Borg's argument (can't call him anti-religion) I'm in favour of the move. ] (]) 12:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
* Authorship and dating:
:* the existence of two separate creation-narratives;
:* separate authorship for the two different creation-narratives ( "Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic")
:* the existence of contradictions between these two narratives;
* Mesopotamian influence:
:* borrowing of themes from Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology;
:* the combined narrative as a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation;
* Sixth day:
:* the interpretation of "God says "Let ''us'' make man."
According to Violincello10104, {{tq|the conclusions of critical scholarship are in fact too controversial and contested to be stated as if they were facts.}} Maybe we can make a fresh start with the contested points above, and suggestions for additions, with relevant literature? Regards, ] - ] 16:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:I believe and can be subsumed into one point. Point was never in dispute as this was always attributed to the various scholarly perspectives. ] (]) 22:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
**That itself is open to debate. Biblical critics believe there are at least two, Rabbinic Biblical scholars believe there is only one and the change in the name used for G-d is representative of something other than author. As the singular version of the word can represent one or more authors and the plural version cannot represent one author, for wikipedia to take a stand would be NPOV. -- ] (]) 13:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Look at things logically - were does this belong ] or ].] (]) 15:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Even if that hypothesis ''was'' a sound one, the narrative in present form is contained in '''one place'''. <i style="text-shadow:lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</i><i style="text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</i> 15:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Avi has a very good point here, and I think it should definitely be taken into account by whoever closes this discussion. For what it's worth, in the dictionaries I have checked, the academic meaning of myth is listed as its primary meaning, which would disagree with his point further above about it being a secondary meaning. However, his point that the Genesis account does contain at least two different versions of the same story is also a good one, and the word "account" or "narrative" or similar might be, maybe, in some ways, less of a clearly singular term than "myth" seems to at least me to be. ] (]) 21:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::To clarify solely for the sake of my own conscience, John, I said ''may'' contain. My personal opinion follows those who believe there is only one, but as this is not Avipedia but Misplaced Pages, we have to do things the wiki way ] -- ] (]) 22:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
'''Lexical reality check''': This debate involves two unverified claims about ''myth'' and ''narrative'' semantics.
**Is ''myth'' an "academic term"? The Academic corpus includes 10,702 ''narrative'' and 3057 ''myth'' usages. Note that many of the latter are in colloquial secondary "common misconception; popular legend" meanings rather than the primary "traditional story; sacred narrative" one.
**How is ''narrative'' usage "neutral"? See the archived ] discussion of July 2010. ] (]) 18:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Straw man argument, you aren't even comparing the correct things, Searching for the term ''creation myth'' i get 70 returned, searching for ''creation narrative'' I get 16. Even though Creation Myth gets more hits returned it is still a stupid metric to judge terms by. ] (]) 18:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::::How many times a certain string of characters is used in any given source doesn't show ''how'' it is being used, or in what context it is used. - ] ] 18:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Only 7 of the hits for "creation myth" relate to Genesis or the Bible, compared to 10 for "creation narrative". Of course, "creation story" is more common than either of these. ] (]) 01:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. This whole discussion about changing the name of the article is a waste of time. The current name is fine. Lets now focus on the real problem, which is the lead. ] ] 20:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::Guys, the current name is fine with Zenkai so we can move on now. Can't believe we wasted so much time discussing this when you were fine with it the whole time! ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 20:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::The current wording ''is'' fine. ] ] 21:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Well I know that ''now''. This whole time that the 37 editors here have been discussing this we've just been waiting for you to come by and blindly assert that it's fine without any evidence or appeal to policy. Now that we know we can obviously end the discussion. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 21:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for your sarcasm, friend. I'm glad I was able to clear this discussion up. Feel free to close it now. ] ] 21:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I'm going to ask at AN for a three admin close. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 21:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::Sounds fair. ] (]) 21:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Yes. 37 opinions is enough to gauge consensus, and I don't think any new arguments will be presented. Three admin close is a good idea. ] (]) 21:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The last debate was even longer, and nothing has changed. ] (]) 23:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Could you provide a reason for your oppose, please. Also see ]. My reading of consensus (judging by the weight of sources, policy, and arguments based on them) is that consensus has shifted since the last discussion. As a result, a ] based on previous consensus some time in the past isn't incredibly helpful. Is there a reason you feel the proposed title isn't supported by the literature? — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 00:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::: The way I understand Johnbod's comment is not that consensus has not changed, but the arguments for and against have not. --] (]) 00:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Yes, or sort of. Whether consensus has actually changed is what we are here to find out; I see no sign of it personally. I commented at length previously, and am not obliged to repeat all that again, though most of the arguments have been aired here I think. ] (]) 15:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The sources don't support this move, and there is even a subtle difference between "Genesis creation narrative" and "Genesis creation myth". ] (]) 23:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Could you clarify which sources you're looking at, please? We have a ''lot'' of sources listed above which support ''creation myth'', and very few for narrative. We even have good sources that are explicit about ''creation myth'' being the prominent academic view, such as ]. Did you see those? — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 00:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::: Why do you always comment on those who oppose the proposal but never those who support it? --] (]) 00:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::I comment where I feel a comment is actually necessary. In this discussion, that has tended to be editors who have voted oppose without specifying any reason for their vote. I do that in most RfCs I care about, because it occasionally solicits an actual argument from an editor who is unaware that ]. <small>This actually favors your desired outcome, since it gives them further opportunity to take part in the discussion, rather than having their empty vote discounted)</small> — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 01:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::The Genesis narrative is a creation myth. That's not just "the prominent academic view", it is basically the only view. We use the term "creation myth" in the intro. I oppose the move because of the policy cited in the proposal: the perfectly neutral present title should not be avoided just because some people believe it is pandering to fundamentalist Christians. It's not. The Genesis myth is a literary narrative, unlike, for instance, the creation myths of certain other cultures, which were not written down for millennia. The creation myth found in Genesis may have existed in multiple versions, but this article is about only one. That is why I prefer "narrative". This article is about a text in the same way that '']'' is. It is not parallel to, for example, ]. ] (]) 01:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::: @Mann_jess - But it's not an empty vote, just because it doesn't state what you want it to. I looked over the responses and a few of the for are "as per ...." are those empty too? You're bias is showing. --] (]) 01:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::: (i) Jess's bias is showing? I think Jess's bias showed when he !voted support just like your bias showed when you !voted oppose. No one who votes is unbiased, obviously, and unless someone knows nothing about the topic they are likely biased as well. (ii) A "per" vote is saying that they accept the argument presented by someone else, so it would be empty or not depending on with whom they are concurring. If person A opposed but didn't present an argument and person B said "Per A" then it would be empty; if person A opposed and presented reasoning and person B said "per A" then it would not be empty. (iii) A !vote is not "empty" when it doesn't say what Jess wants it to, a vote is empty when all it does is say "support" or "oppose" without referencing policy or by giving a reason that goes against policy. Please keep in mind that the "!" in "!vote" translates to "not vote" because consensus is not a vote. If 50 people vote for something without giving an argument or policy to back it up and 1 person votes against but presents a reasoned argument based on policy then consensus is the argument of that one (at least in theory). ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 02:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::*Well said. I never agree with Noformation, <s>and can't really imagine an editor who holds views more diametrically opposed to my own</s> (well, I take that back... there are half a dozen....that this RFC has dragged in), but thank him for this lucid elucidation of basic dialectic. Neutral voting? LOL! ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 18:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I've gone through the objections, but see nothing that is "too controversial and contested," which corresponds with the judgement of ], ], and ]. Regards, ] - ] 17:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::: @Srnec, thanks for the reply. The policy here should be ], not ], since NPOV says that we shouldn't shy away from using myth. We have a number of sources which use "creation myth" to refer to this subject extensively, so based on the sources above, that would appear to me to apply. Is there a reason you think we should avoid the common name (and "prominent academic view")? I'm not sure the oral or literary nature of the subject is relevant. (Anyway, I could be mistaken, but IIRC Genesis has roots in oral tradition as well. See ) ] is named after the title of the work, just as ]. However, this article is not ''Book of Genesis''; it covers the creation myths contained within the book, and is complimentary to that article. If we created a subarticle on a myth contained in the Epic of Gilgamesh, we would name it the same way.
::::::::: @Walter I'm really not interested. Please keep your focus on the article, not me. I'm tired of you accusing me of bias and bad faith everywhere. If you think my civilly responding to editors in a discussion is cause for concern, take it to my talk or RFCU. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 03:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::: Can't be done when you kibutz with everyone who disagrees with you. Sorry. Your bias is obvious, but since you're not interested...--] (]) 03:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:I appreciate this very much, as a detailed examination of my original argument is what I was looking for. I feel once we have discussed this there will be no need for the DRN so I will write that I would like to put that on hold at least for the moment. ] (]) 22:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
=== Arbitrary break ===
::And I'm very interested in getting to know more about these 'alternate' (conservative, Evangelical) views. ] - ] 03:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' "Myth" implies fairy tail to many readers. ] (]) 02:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::Your reasoning is something ] specifically says is not a factor in determining the use of terminology. - ]] 03:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::: I have come to the conclusion that ] is written from the POV that there is no God and so to discuss it as though there was a God is wrong. --] (]) 03:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::::That is quite possibly the correct conclusion to come to. --] (]) 03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::::If you feel that one of the ] of Misplaced Pages, ] is itself not NPOV, you're welcome to bring that up there and discuss it. However, short of changing how the policy is worded, the policy exists and is quite clear on this. - ]] 03:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
=== the existence of two separate creation-narratives===
:::As well as ] of course. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 03:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Bart Ehrman (May 11, 2021], (emphasis mine):
*'''Support'''. Creation stories ''are'' fairy tales, with the exception of the ones that are peer reviewed. This isn't Conservapedia. That aside, I don't care whether it's "myth" or "narrative" as long as it is consistent across articles. What we did recently is make a special case for our favouritest fairy tale, which is no good at all. --] (]) 02:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
{{talkquote|scholars have thought that the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), were not written by Moses, but later, and that they represent not a single work by a single author, but a compilation of sources, each of them written at different times. '''The evidence for this view is quite overwhelming''' The internal tensions in the Pentateuch came to be seen as particularly significant. Nowhere were these tensions more evident than in the opening accounts of the very first book, in the creation stories of Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Scholars came to recognize that what is said in Genesis 1 cannot be easily (or at all) reconciled with what is said in Genesis 2. These do not appear to be two complementary accounts of how the creation took place; they appear to be two accounts that are at odds with each other in fundamental and striking ways.}}
: I'm sorry, that's an opinion. There is no proof that it is a fairy tale, simply an opinion from an atheist POV. --] (]) 03:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
So, not controversial (unless you reject Bart Ehrman, of course). Wayne Jackson , Apologetics Press, gives an apologetic view, but still refers to the documenatary hypothesis, which seems to have been superseeded. ] - ] 16:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't think you read the whole thing. That Genesis is a fairly tale is just something I'm pointing out by-the-by. It isn't the reason for my vote. --] (]) 03:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:As explained in its main article, the ] has been partially replaced by a fragmentary hypothesis: "the Pentateuch is seen as a compilation of short, independent narratives, which were gradually brought together into larger units in two editorial phases: the Deuteronomic and the Priestly phases." So instead of four main sources, there may have been numerous texts edited into the Pentateuch. ] (]) 02:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::That Genesis "is a fairy tale" is blatant bias and is present in none of the reliable literature, nor any but the most militantly anti-religious sources (remember that most sources dealing with religion ''are religious''). It is rarely held to be literally true by academic commentators (although there are a few exceptions to ''probare'' the rule), but is generally held to contain some symbolic or timeless truth, or to be history in some sense. Note, that I say "some sense", not that it is modern scientific history. To find any views other than the literal, one must restrict oneself to the last 180 years. Note that "myth" does not connote fairy tale and contains no judgment of truth-value. Note, that the entire argument for "myth" being an NPOV term relies upon that assertion, and you deftly put the lie to it . Note, that I said above, "the entire history of this article, from 'Creation according to Genesis' to 'Genesis creation narrative', has been a POV war, and soon enough we'll have editors crying for 'bullshit fable'". '''''Cave, scriptores!''''' ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 18:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::Preceding Ehrman's quote, this statement from VC from the DNR:
:::*'''comment'''-That "Creation stories ''are'' fairy tales" is simply ''your'' POV, which is exactly the reason ''myth'' should not be included, because to the general reader it implies a ''fairy tale'', a falsehood, a mythical story from the ancient past. Misplaced Pages is supposed to report the story, not become involved in it. It is therefore POV spin and cannot be included in the article, which is why so many editors have justifiably removed it. ] (]) 06:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::{{talkquote|According to ViolanteMD and myself, the positive claims of critical scholarship regarding the Genesis creation narrative, namely its composite authorship and inconsistent content (e.g., Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are said to have been written by a 'Priestly' and 'Jahwistic' source respectively, and contradict each other in their doctrines of God and humanity), are contested and controversial, which is reflected in Bart Ehrman's practice of not even attributing a claim to 'most' scholars unless traditional scholars also agree. }}
::Ehrman here does not say "most scholars," but he also doesn't say critical scholars"; he just says "scholars," and seems to be quite outspoken that this is broadly accepted. So, VC's 'Ehrman-criterium' seems to be met here.
::And he writes (emphasis Ehrman, not mine):
::{{talkquote|The book of Genesis is the first book of the Pentateuch, as the first five books of the Hebrew Bible are known. This includes Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Tradition says that Moses wrote these five books but '''the scholarly consensus is that Moses didn’t write any of them'''.}}
] - ] 03:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:That is evidence of inconsistency on the part of Ehrman, according to his own principle in the blog post I gave, he ought to have said 'the consensus of critical scholarship' or something like that, as he says 'What I do say is what most “critical” scholars think, and when I say that, I’m usually pretty sure what I’m talking about. I might make a mistake about that on occasion.' ] (]) 08:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::: No I read it, but when your bias is showing, your argument is flawed. But it's already been shown (below) that there isn't consistency. However that could easily be corrected. --] (]) 03:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::As has been pointed out above, an editor's "bias" shows as soon as they type the word "support" or the word "oppose". --] (]) 03:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::: Not in your case where you called it a fairy tale. Not everyone who supports or opposes has a bias, they may simply be looking at the facts presented and weigh-in based on that. --] (]) 04:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::: Because describing a story with a talking snake, convincing a woman, who sprang to life from a bone, to eat the fruit of a magic tree, as a “fairy tale” could only be a POV matter of opinion.~ ~ ] (]) 14:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
*(extremely, supremely, superlatively strong)'''support''' myth is the technical term for this particular kind of religious narrative, and it is also the more common and more neutral usage (neutral because we can't use myth for some religions and narrative for others).]·] 03:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
: Another editor indicating that it is the more common term, yet it has been shown that this isn't the case. Perhaps an accounting by those who indicate it's more common is in order as those who say the opposite have done. --] (]) 03:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::No it has not been shown to be the case. Just because you say it often enough doesn't make it true. ] (]) 11:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
<s>*'''Oppose'''. ''Narrative'' is a very neutral term. It does not need to be changed. I believe this has been discussed many, many times and "narrative" was decided on as a neutral term. Lets put this tired topic to rest already.</s> ] (]) 04:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::It is only neutral if creation myths of other religions are also called "narratives".]·] 15:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::::The Correct Human is a confirmed sock of Zenkai251. ] (]) 17:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': It has been shown that "narrative" is used in reliable sources and that it is in common usage. Thus "Genesis creation narrative" passes WP:POVTITLE. – ] <sup>(])</sup> 04:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::Narrative is common usage by non-]. Among independent sources, which describe it from a disinterested perspective, creation myth is the more common descriptor. - ]] 15:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
<s>:::Someone has already proved your assumption is incorrect. Look around in this mess of a discussion and you will find the post. ] (]) 16:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)</s>
::::Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Please, provide a diff of this, because my "assumption" is based on reliable sources, , and I have seen nothing to indicate anything refuting this. - ]] 16:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)<s>
:::::Thanks :). It is somewhere in this extremely long discussion. If I had more time, I would find it for you. ] (]) 16:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)</s>
::::::Then I will assume it does not exist, as nothing has been given to refute this. - ]] 16:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Of the 31 academic instances of the term "creation myth" in the Corpus of Contemporary American English (), only three refer to the Genesis account. However, of the 13 academic instances of the term "creation narrative" in the COCA, seven of them refer to the Genesis account. Since Misplaced Pages is not prescriptive, but rather ''descriptive'', it ought to follow the common conventions that are currently in use, which, at least according to this analysis seem not to overwhelmingly prefer the "myth" term, as many editors here would have us to believe. ]] 04:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::Using the site you linked, how many of the instances of "creation narrative" are independent sources? Only 4. However, I found 5 sources (which oddly differs from your 3) that use "creation myth" to describe Genesis. - ]] 15:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' myth; it is simply the more accurate title. I could live with "story" as a compromise though. ] (]) 09:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
*Outside editor just throwing out a few tidbits for people to consider. Personally reading the debate I would favor the change to myth since it is what all religions are addressed as by scholars (even if the common person uses it more frequently as a fictional story.) Also in my experience a narrative is generally used to assert that something is without reserve true, while this isn't necessarily a problem to me you can see how this might cause heartburn for certain people. In my mind story is even worse than myth as myth at least has multiple meanings, and story implies something along the line of bedtime story or something you make up to tell to children. Just my two cents as I check the current RfC boards. ] (]) 13:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
=== separate authorship ( "Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic")===
*The phrase "creation story" or "creation narrative" is clearly more common in devotional or exegetical literature. That is a non-neutral standpoint and sometimes its even clear that it is "insider" jargon, such as in these sources that use "creation story" for the Christian myth and myth for all the others:. On the other hands scholarship that is not devotional almost invariably use the word myth equitatively for all creation myths:. The basic question is whether to adopt a Christian theological language to describe Christianity in the encyclopedia or whether to adopt a devotional or a scholarly pov in the title. Since adopting a devotional pov is clearly in violation of NPOV while a scholarly POV is religiously neutral there is only one decision that is supported by policy. Misplaced Pages is not a christian encyclopedia.]·] 15:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Solved:
*'''Oppose'''. "Narrative" is a more neutral term, and possibly less POV. More importantly, though, however academic and neutral and correct "myth" is proclaimed to be, there are sufficiently large portions of our readership who will misunderstand it that we will, in effect, be writing an incorrect article. Wlinking in the lead to an explanation of what is meant, while a good attempt, is insufficient, because too many will not see or click the link, and will thus have an incorrect understanding of what we have written. We have to recognise that this is the English WP, thus we ought to write in English; "academic English" isn't good enough to be fully understood. Cheers, ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 16:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
{{talkquote|Although Orthodox Jews and "fundamentalist Christians" attribute the Genesis to Moses "as a matter of faith," the Mosaic authorship has been questioned since the 11th century, and has been rejected in scholarship since the 17th century. Scholars of Biblical criticism conclude that it, together with the following four books (making up what Jews call the Torah and biblical scholars call the Pentateuch), is "a composite work, the product of many hands and periods."}}
::Creation narrative is certainly not less POV, the majority of sources that use this term over creation myth are writing from a non-independent religious POV. Possible misunderstanding of the meaning is not a factor in determining the use of terminology, per the policy ]. - ]] 16:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Ergo: not controversial. ] and ] don't give any additional info on conservative views on the authorship of Genesis; no reason to do otherwise here. ] - ] 16:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Which is, i'm afraid, why the policy is mistaken and should be changed. The ability of our readers to understand us should be a factor, nay, '''the''' primary factor in everything we write. It's all to easy to forget that readers, not editors, are the primary target of this huge and wonderful project; anything which does not aid them is mistaken. Cheers, ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 18:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Then readers should be educated rather than dumb the encyclopedia down!] (]) 18:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::@Lindsay, then you should go to ] and propose a change. When you get it changed, then we can reopen this discussion. We can't just sidestep NPOV in the meantime. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 18:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:Support this. Great job. ] (]) 16:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
'''Oppose''' as completely pointless. There is '''nothing to gain''' from renaming/moving the page in terms of building a better encyclopedia. This entire debate is just a mass of "My subjective interptetation is more valid than your subjective interpretation!" Still, at least the POV warriors on both sides have had some fun with this massive waste of time. --] (]) 18:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:I'm not proposing for any additional info to be given, but for attribution of critical scholarship to critical views to be given (]]). I do not know what the source of this quote is, but that is precisely what I am requesting for this article. At the very least, an acknowledgment that scholars 'of biblical criticism' conclude separate authorship. I would actually endorse the insertion of this quotation in the article somehow, and would consider my concerns allayed on that point. ] (]) 22:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
::Although this goes beyond my proposal, I think it would be beneficial to include the first sentence about the views of Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians. The quote is an excellent and brief summary of the authorship question. ] (]) 22:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:::What kind of ] do you think we should give to the (often contradictory) opinions of religious extremists about this particular mythology? ] (]) 16:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Is this a serious comment, aiming to improve the page? The sentence is quite clear, isn't it, with regard to weight. ] - ] 15:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::This is serious. Unless there is a coherent argument to the contrary, I think that the views of Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians as believers in thing mythology are not relevant to the subject of this article and certainly don't belong in the lede. ] (]) 15:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Discarding scholars because of their religious views, especially when some of them are respected among critical scholars, is never a good idea. If you label this as 'fundamentalist religious POV pushing,' then what you are doing—discarding scholarship based on religion and your own understanding of the world—can be labeled as communist POV pushing, or perhaps as POV pushing from someone who doesn’t like Christians and Jews. As far as I can see, it’s not the Christians and Jews who have an issue with NPOV here, but the editors who call them extremists. Yes, proper attribution must always be provided, such as according to conservative views and according to more mainstream or critical views. However, I don’t think omitting it would be appropriate or NPOV, as they are still scholars with their own reasoning. I mean, it’s up to the readers to discard their theories as nonsense based on the reasoning of science and other considerations, or they may take away other lessons. We should not be the ones to decide which views to censor based on religion if there is sufficient scholarship about it. Thanks. ] (]) 16:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::If people argue for demonstrably incorrect things as do those who believe in what they call the literal interpretation of the bible, we are under no obligation to spread their opinions. ] (]) 17:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Traditional views do not necessarily mean literal interpretation. They have philosophical inquiry at their core, especially if the religion itself is not extremely rigid. In this case, I don’t see how traditional views can act exclusively as a support for literal translation. If it’s not already clear enough in the article, maybe someone can work on that (that literal translations without nuance are highly unlikely). More distinction might be required between literal translations and movements that believe in them, and the traditional views of many other denominations, which I agree often come across as apologetics for the religion itself. That’s why I believe attribution is necessary. Still, I don’t see any reason to remove them if they have enough relevant scholarship. Let the readers decide about critical views and apologetic views. There’s no need to censor 'scholars' of one side. ] (]) 18:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I think we should include them if third parties have commented on them. But as singular statements of opinion, they don't belong in Misplaced Pages. There are certain ideas (e.g. "Moses authored the Pentateuch") which deserve inclusion because there are third-party scholars that comment on such claims. But detailed analyses trying to shoe-horn some orthodox religious interpretation as worthy "on the other hand" points do not deserve inclusion ''unless others have commented on them''. ] (]) 20:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::''Unless '''others''' might have commented on them'' might not be very reflective of the point I was making. In any case, even for that, you need to engage constructively, section by section, with the editors involved, and put forward your objections before deciding on some adjustments. Questions like "How fringe is the view? Is it part of the tradition or a single fringe scholar trying to come up with something new?" etc. should be discussed and analyzed there with the editors involved. But if you act in bad faith and behave as though you are here just to discredit something and resort to name-calling like "extremists," then I don’t think many here would be willing to engage with you, and you will be dismissed on the grounds of bigotry, not because your points were or will not be good enough. I don’t know what your points will be but it was not good enough earlier; I hope you understand what I am trying to say. Also, Traditional views may often claim divinity in them, but then we have a section of critical views to debunk or challenge them. And as I said, leave that to the readers; if someone is more inclined toward science, they will lean more toward critical views, in any case. My job is done here. I’ve given my opinion. Now I rest (hopefully not in peace). Have a good day! ] (]) 20:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::He is not against Jews and Christians, since nobody would accept that. He is against fundamentalists trying to pass for historians.
:::::::::::You see, theology means knowledge of God, not knowledge of historical fact. ] (]) 21:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::And that’s what I said: fringe claims or sources, such as those trying to prove that the literal meaning of the verses is exactly as written word for word, should be singled out. That is not philosophy. Still, I’m not entirely in favor of completely removing them. I mean, don’t you think the more ridiculous the claim, the easier it is to debunk? On the other hand, you cannot debunk a philosophy, like, for example, the concept of the Trinity and nuances such as the ] and singular ] which are traditional views held by an extremely large group. These are not fringe claims, nor are they based on literal written meanings, but might be more rooted in belief. They are forms of philosophy that emerged from those scriptures through some form of reasoning. As I said, if someone has a problem with the concept of belief in divinity, they should discuss it in the next section under critical or mainstream analysis using science, logic, facts, reality, or whatever they have in their arsenal. My point is there’s no problem including how Christians and Jews view their scriptures unless it’s extremely ridiculous, like a literal word-for-word interpretation. I would even argue that labeling these people as extremists is not justified unless they are imposing that belief on you forcefully. Everyone deserves to live their life their way peacefully until they disturb others, so it’s better to refrain from labels. Soooo, now I’m going to sleep for real... Have a good day! ] (]) 22:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::If you can find independent sources who discuss how Christians or Jews view this scripture as it relates to the scripture itself, that's fine. What is not okay is passing off the musings of the faithful that no one has bothered to address in the scholarly literature. ] (]) 23:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::So... the views of those who continue the Biblical traditions are not relevant, only those of whom questioned these beliefs and rejected them? It means you remove the context and background of critical Bible-studies; that's a pityfull impoverishment. ] - ] 17:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::What basis do you have for thinking that believers in demonstrably incorrect things deserve space in Misplaced Pages articles? I mean, things like "this story happened as written". ] (]) 17:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I'm afraid you're severely strawmanning the views of religous critical scholars. I think that your classification of Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians as {{tq|"religious extremists"}} and Christianity as {{tq|"mythology"}}, despite that not being the mainstream terms to describe them, speaks for itself. I think its evident that you're not going to get consensus here. ] (]) 18:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::What are you talking about? How is a literal interpretation of the bible not religious extremism? How is this not mythology? Who in the mainstream disputes either point? ] (]) 20:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::This isn't a "literal interpretation" issue. Nowhere in Genesis does it say Moses wrote it. Moses isn't even ''mentioned'' in Genesis. . The idea that Moses wrote it comes from tradition and/or extrapolation from statements that he wrote ''totally different books''. Not literal interpretation of Genesis. This is what editors are talking about. You're clearly inserting your own bias into this by using fringe theory, negative connotation terms and then shifting the talk to literal interpretation debates, despite it not even being the issue here. @] Already outlined it nicely. You're clearly contrary to editor consensus and no one wants to engage with you because of your name-calling tactics. Probably best to move on. ] (]) 22:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::It is a literal interpretation issue. The sources that are being quoted seem to believe in a literal interpretation. They are being put back into the article for false balance. That's not okay. No reliable sources should be referencing ] for anything but the recognition that they are the butt of jokes on the internet. ] (]) 23:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Well that's great, but {{tq| "The sources that are being quoted''' seem''' to believe in a literal interpretation.}} is ]. We don't go off of what editors think the sources ''seem'' like to them. So on top of you being over-ridden by consensus. It's contrary to policy. ] (]) 02:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::] is a recommendation for article writing. It is not a charge that we must act the fool on a talkpage when a source is presented as scholarship which is actually just creationist claptrap. ] (]) 16:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::It is not merely a recommendation. ] is wikipedia '''policy'''. The only exception is via an "ignore all rules" scenario, and that is clearly not met here. Particularly since you're contrary to consensus. ] (]) 16:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Lol! ] applies to articlespace only. I have no intention of changing course. Feel free to file a case with a drahmaboard if you think it's a problem. ] (]) 18:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Correct. You are trying to change article space, based upon OR, are you not? ] (]) 18:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I have made an evaluation of a source. ] is garbage as far as a source for anything goes. They deserve to be excised. Go ahead and complain to the admins that I hurt the feelings of acolytes of that website. I don't care. ] (]) 18:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Why can't you wait for other editors who might share your position? Instead, you are being rude for no reason and acting like a child when you don’t get what you want. I don’t care about the source or what's taken from it, as long as it’s attributed; that’s fine. It’s not like people have written a golden article on AIG , so why even care? Readers can easily check the details about the organization from which the content is sourced right here on Misplaced Pages if they don’t already know. Attribution is key. You are asking for complete censorship. After this attitude, you are also throwing tantrums. Because of this behavior, other proper editors who might have shared your stance will run away. You are crossing the line between criticism and pure hatred. I have nothing more to say to you. ] (]) 19:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Echoing thoughts above. I think this issue is sufficiently resolved. ] (]) 19:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::No. It's not good enough to say, "Readers can check where the information is from". Misplaced Pages should not link to incorrect information. That's all that ] provides. This is a hill I am willing to die on. Try to take me out if you would like.
:::::::::::::::::::There is nothing rude about this. It's just a terrible source and it needs to be removed. I cannot conscience the idea of students coming to this page looking for accurate information and being told, "hey, check out these charlatans". No, that's not what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about.
:::::::::::::::::::] (]) 19:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::] is not banned ''from talk pages'' and crying OR does not prevent the editors from recognizing ] stuff. We have to call a spade a spade in the talk pages, regardless of whether a full professor already did that for us. ] (]) 20:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::Think you need to re-read my comment at 18:41. Regardless, editors have already patiently explained to you two why your positions are contrary to policy, and you have cited ''nothing'' to support your statements. And now, since you guys resorted to name-calling and overall ], people aren’t interested in walking you through it again or engaging with you anymore. You were contrary to consensus, you tried to explained your position, and the consensus was not swayed. Move on. ] (]) 21:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::This article cites Ken Ham? (yes, at the moment) Answers in Genesis? (yes, it does). For shame. Neither is a reliable source for ''any'' information, including about themselves, and they have no place in this article. ] (]) 21:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::I transferred the sentence with the Ham citation verbatim from the old 'Framework interpretation' article (due to the merge), where it was added over ten years ago. The sentence in question is describing the views of biblical literalist young-earth creationists. I actually would prefer another source because he is considered fringe even among evangelicals. I also think there could be a better replacement for AiG. I will do some research and find something in the next few days then propose it here.
:::::::::::::::::::::::Note: my position about evangelical scholars in general remains unchanged. Collins is mainstream, Ham is not. ] (]) 22:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::{{tq|contrary to policy}}? Seriously? Collins 2006 was cited 14 times, while Collins 2018 and Friedman got one citation each.
::::::::::::::::::::::::Even if Collins 2006 remains in the article, it is preposterous that he gets the lion's share.
::::::::::::::::::::::::I'm a moderate: I can agree that completely removing Collins 2006 is perhaps too radical, but this article should not become ] for Collins 2006. ] (]) 15:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::My mistake, this is actually a part of the article already hahaha. Since this is already the practice of the article, what is wrong with applying it consistently? In other words, what is your disagreement with my proposed edits to Lines 6, 20 and 27 (not with respect to Mesopotamian influence on this point)? ] (]) 22:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
=== the existence of contradictions between these two narratives===
'''Comment''' Jess, you keep on referring to ]. Your argument seems to be that "myth" is not unacceptable despite its much-better-known connotation, due to its particular denotation as regards religion. However, that is not an argument which invalidates "narrative", merely one that says that "myth" should not suffer from what would otherwise be an obvious flaw. My question to you then is why do you feel that "myth" is '''more''' neutral than "narrative," or why do you feeel "narrative" is ''not'' neutral or appropriate? Especially as both are used in "the real world" as it were, and the latter seems to outnumber the former. In my opinion, with two wiki-acceptable and wiki-neutral titles, I believe it makes sense to use the neutral title that has a clearer connotation and prevents misconceptions whilst adhering to WP:NPOV, and that would be "narrative". -- ] (]) 18:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
See . ] - ] 17:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:I (and others) have referenced NPOV because ] specifies we shouldn't avoid 'myth' when appropriate. Consequently, this isn't a discussion of neutrality. Any editor who !votes that one version is "more neutral" than another should read ] again. The question is ], and the independent reliable sources presented thus far have indicated the creation myth contained in Genesis is, indeed, commonly referred to as a creation myth. Therefore, that's the title supported by policy in my reading of the literature. Neutrality isn't my reason for support; it's my reason to reject much of the opposition. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 18:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:Do you support my proposed edit to Line 27 which is now the first comment under ]? ] (]) 22:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' -- narrative doesn't imply truth or falsity, and is therefore more NPOV than "myth". --] 18:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::In Academic usage neither does myth. Are you willing to extend your argument to other religions as well, so that the word creation myth is not to be used in wikipedia? Unless you are then it is not neutral to argue that the Crhistian creation account shopuld be protected from the popular connotations of "myth" whereas the word can be used for other religions. ]·] 18:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::@Sarek: Could you comment on how this intersects with ], please? There's been a lot of discussion of this above you may wish to read through, if you haven't already. Thanks. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 18:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::* {{tq|The overlapping stories of Genesis 1 and 2 '''are often regarded''' as contradictory but also complementary}} - "often" is imprecise; I'd say "usually," and have added this. I've already added a note there, with the Ehrman-quote, and the line {{tq|For an apologetic view, see Wayne Jackson Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?, Apologetics Press.}} We could precede that line with something like "Conservative/Evangelical Christians view the two stories as mutually dependend stories which form one narrative." One source (random, Google "evangelicals genesis one narrative"): J. Daryl Charles (ed.)(2013), ''Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation'', Hendrickson Publishers, p.2-3, mentions literary versus literal reading, and historical versus literary. I've added this to the Ehrman-Jackson note.
== Why not include both titles? ==
::* {{tq|although not all scholars share these interpretations.}} - imprecise; state "X (kind of) scholars are of the opinion that ... ," which could be added to a note. It's not clear now at all which scholars you'r ereferring to, what they object to, and what alternative they propose.
::* Levenson: already moved to a note.
::] - ] 03:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I've made a series of edits; it looks like {{tq|although not all scholars share these interpretations}} is the only issue left. Regards, ] - ] 06:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
is a great idea. I would suggest that rather than "The '''Genesis creation narrative''' (or ]) is..." perhaps "The '''Genesis creation narrative''' also commonly referred to the '''Genesis ])''' is...". --] (]) 16:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure what your opinion is on my 'Ehrman-criterium' (especially given my response to you in ), but if we accept it, then the second sentence in the lead paragraph 'The first account, in Genesis 1:1–2:4, is from what scholars call the Priestly source (P)', should be preceded by some statement like, 'According to traditional interpretation, the Pentateuch in its entirety was written by Moses as an inspired and infallible work , while critical models of the composition of the Pentateuch (the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with Deuteronomy), the first account...' This also applies to the first paragraph of Note ''b''. Also cut out the sentence 'drawn from different sources' and move the note to the second sentence. ] (]) 08:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::I've added a line on this to the lead. ] - ] 10:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::That's perfect except for the word 'mainstream'. My argument (and the Ehrman-criterium) necessitate that this word should be replaced by 'critical'. Otherwise, there is no point in mentioning the traditional view since composite authorship is an 'uncontroversial and uncontested fact'. This is in reference to ] which has this 'fringe/mainstream' dichotomy that's been extensively debated on this talk page. Unrelated note: you can remove the first appearance of Note ''b'' since it now comes twice in one sentence. ] (]) 11:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No. You can't ad hoc interpret your 'Ehrman-criterium' to make it fit your preferences. Ehrman, in two differnt writings, clearly states "scholarly concensus" and "scholars," not "critical scholars" or "Biblical criticism," nor "mainstream. I've changed it to plain "scholars," per Ehrman. ] - ] 07:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I have never said that Ehrman possesses supernatural infallibility in his writings. In determining what views 'mainstream scholarship' includes, I consulted the opinion of an expert in the field, who states that he does not discount evangelical scholars and will not attribute a conclusion to 'most scholars' unless evangelicals agree. His practice in other writings is totally irrelevant. I am interested in his opinion on this matter specifically. ] (]) 08:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::To be honest, with respect to NPOV I think this article is fine now and I have no further qualms. But my original argument aside, I think 'critical' should be added before 'scholars' for the sake of clarity. Jewish and Christian tradition maintain textual unity, now 'scholars' dispute this. Why? The reason for this is biblical criticism, therefore this should be specified. ] (]) 13:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:::'The highly regimented seven-day narrative of Genesis 1 features an omnipotent God who creates a god-resembling humanity, while the one-day creation of Genesis 2 uses a simple linear narrative, a God who can fail as well as succeed, and a humanity which is not god-like but is punished for attempting to become god-like.' This sentence would be denied by any traditional scholar (including any traditional/orthodox Christian or Jew). As per the Ehrman-criterium (really ]), it must not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice but qualified to critical and/or liberal scholars. ] (]) 08:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:I support the original, the current, the suggested, anything that doesn't move the article. I more strongly support the original (is a creation myth) than the others, and secondly prefer the parenthesized (or creation myth). ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 19:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Why would it be denied, according to which source? ] - ] 10:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:: Per ], and specifically ], might make "The '''Genesis creation narrative''' (also '''Genesis ])''' is..." a good alternative. I think we know why I believe the current form isn't working. --] (]) 21:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::::I've attributed this piece to it's author, Carr. ] - ] 10:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{talkquote|Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: Article XIV. We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture. We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.}} (International Council on Biblical Inerrancy 1978, ''The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy''. Oakland, California. https://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf.) This statement was signed by a number of prominent evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants, and represents traditional Protestant interpretation. ] (]) 11:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::There is another discussion ongoing on the rename, it seems premature to start another topic which will just divert attention everywhere and thus lead to no resolution. ] (]) 21:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Per the ''policy'', the correct article title is '''Genesis creation myth''', which would also be the first bold term in the sentence. However '''Genesis creation narrative''' could be listed as a secondary alternative. The bolded part of the lead sentence should not contain a link.--] (]) 08:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I believe it makes sense, whatever the outcome of the RfC, that the beginning sentence use both phrases, and bold both. The only question I can see is which order they should be put in, as the phrasing above would probably work just as well with the terms reversed, and I assume that the RfC will decide that issue. ] (]) 21:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
:Why not include <u>''neither''</u> title?
:Why isn't the title, ]?
:Why doesn't the first sentence read, ''"The ] is the first book of the ] (the ] of the ])"?''
:Why aren't we leaving out the elaborations over which we are disagreeing? There is ''essential'' language that has to be included in the title and the first sentence. It is ''not essential'' that we characterize the first two chapters of Genesis in either the title or the first sentence of the lead. There is ample room in the body of the article for such characterization. ] (]) 19:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
:: Because it's not a discourse on the first two chapters of Genesis, it's a discussion of creation which is discussed in other locations as discuss in the '''Biblical creation mythology outside Genesis''' section. --] (]) 20:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Also, as can be found in ], there already are several other articles relating to smaller parts of the first two chapters. While it might be acceptable, I suppose, to try to merge all those articles and this one into a single article, I believe that would probably be the required first step of such a change in the title and scope of this article. ] (]) 20:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
There is apparently no willingness for compromise or for concession and both sides feel justified in continuing in their ways. I think it may be time for me to ignore this article. --] (]) 23:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
:I also find myself wondering why title needs to include either "narrative" or "myth". For that matter, why even narrow the title's focus to "Genesis", when it is covering various views (and there are certainly other notable views on the subject that could be covered) of Judeo-Christian creation stories, and covers material outside of Genesis? ] <sup>]</sup> 10:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::''This article'' is about one of many ''creation myths''. It is not neutral to treat this article any differently to other ''creation myths'' articles, which do not shy away from correctly naming the articles.--] (]) 12:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::That's a primary source, and does not directly address Carr's statement, or the perceived differences in narrative structure/content. ] - ] 06:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:::You're confused, Jeffro77. If you go to ], you'll see quite a few articles that don't have "creation myth" in their title. - ] (] - ]) 12:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::{{talkquote|We have also seen that the assertion that the P account lacks anthropomorphisms is mistaken: the first pericope actually depends on an anthropomorphic presentation, where God is a craftsman going through his workweek, taking his rest each evening, and then enjoying his Sabbath. This merges with the anthropomorphic presentation of the second pericope, in which God "forms" the man like a potter and "builds" the woman. Further, we have already seen that, while the first pericope certainly does emphasize God's transcendence, it is far from presenting him as distant or aloof. In fact it invites us to enter into aspects of God's own experience, and to imitate his model. Where does this leave us? Do these pericopes come from separate sources or not? There is no way to answer this question, since the putative sources no longer exist. But for each feature that is put forward to support the source theory, it turns out that literary and grammatical considerations supply a better explanation in terms of the overall flow of the narrative. In other words, if someone produced this text by stitching sources together, he left the seams smooth indeed.}} (''Genesis 1—4 : a linguistic, literary, and theological commentary'', C. John Collins, 2006, P&R Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, New Jersey, pp. 230-231) Composite authorship is contested and controversial. ] (]) 08:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I approve of this now since you added 'According to Carr,' however you might like to add this argumentation from Collins in response to Carr to round out the POV of this article. ] (]) 08:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Done . ] - ] 11:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
=== borrowing of themes from Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology===
::::Most of which are poor quality articles with infrequent editing on them as I noted below. ] (]) 16:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Kacie Klamm, Abraham Winitzer (2023), , Oxford Bibliographies:
{{talkquote|The imprint of Mesopotamia’s mythic thought and literature on Genesis’ Primeval History (Genesis 1–11) is hard to overstate, even if the biblical unit also contains much that is non-Mesopotamian in origins, and even if it must ultimately be considered on its own terms and, more broadly, those of the Bible as a whole. But these factors cannot take away from the place of Mesopotamia’s stories of origins in the Bible’s opening chapters; and the latter, remarkably, do not fully conceal these antecedents. To the contrary, in its layout the biblical text appears frank about the locale of what preceded its eventual epic-making call to Abraham to “go forth” (Gen. 12:1) from his homeland and begin anew in a faraway place.}}
Some alternate takes:
:::::] is correct, but if you feel that the articles are of poor quality, you always have the right to make them better, as ] has reminded us, Misplaced Pages is not censored. ] (]) 05:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
* James M. Rochford, ]], Evidence Unseen
::::::Lisa doesn't know what Lisa is talking about, and has no way of gauging whether I am 'confused'; IRWolfie- has sufficiently dealt with the rest of that point. Additionally, Willietell, the notion that ] ''does not'' mean that it should contain ''just any'' POV, but that it may contain valid information supported by ''policy'', even where that material may cause 'necessary' offense.--] (]) 08:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
* Liz Abrams (2022), ], Answers in Genesis
This is also far beyond "too controversial and contested." ] - ] 17:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::But the offense ''isn't'' necessary when it can so easily be mitigated by a simple in-text clarification. The fact that you object so strongly to such a clarification makes it clear that AGF or no, your goal is to push an agenda. - ] (] - ]) 12:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::No. You are simply ignoring plain statements of '''policy'''.--] (]) 14:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
There's nothing that separates policy prooftexting from Biblical prooftexting except the medium of discourse. It is still argument to authority, as if policy is sacrosanct law. I'm sure it can be found in some ] the letter to support any position. "The letter killeth, but the spirit maketh alive", or something like that. ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 18:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::No problem with this idea - I think we used to do this. ] (]) 15:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:The 'imprint of Mesopotamia's mythic thought and literature on Genesis' is different from 'borrowing of themes'. Notice that Klamm and Winitzer qualify their statement, saying '... is hard to overstate, even if the biblical unit also contains much that is non-Mesopotamian in origins, and even if it must ultimately be considered on its own terms and, more broadly, those of the Bible as a whole.' I believe the current wording of 'borrowing' is too broad and does not give the nuance which Klamm and Winitzer express. Again, I would endorse the addition of the wording of this quote into the article. ] (]) 23:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
== why was genre removed? ==
::Both sources are talking about ], not the creation narrative. The ] has its own article, and it is not part of a ]. ] (]) 02:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Without any discussion, the entire section on genre was summarily removed. Here is the text that was included...
<blockquote>
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<ref>{{harvnb|Feinberg|2006}}</ref> (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).<ref name="Sparks, Kenton 2008">{{harvnb|Sparks|2008}}</ref></blockquote>
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? ] 03:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::@Violoncello10104: Sarna (1997) says "borrowed some themes"; that's in line with the nuance you're looking for. I've added "some" to the text, and changed the sentence in the lead into
For instance, here are two excellent examples of academics who have contributed to the discussion about the genre of Genesis 1:
:::{{talkquote|The authors of the Hebrew creation narrative were influenced by ] and ], and borrowed some themes from them, adapting and integrating them with their unique ].}}
*{{cite book|last=Feinberg|first=John S. |title=No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God |publisher=Good News Publishers|date=2006|series=Foundations of Evangelical Theology|volume=2|pages=577|chapter=The Doctrine of Creation—Literary Genre of Genesis 1 and 2|isbn=1581348118}}
:::@Dimadick: those two internet-articles are linked in a note, as examples of the conservative/Evangelical view; I wouldn't use them as sources, just as 'illustrations'. ] - ] 05:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
*{{cite book|last=Boyd|first=Steven W.|title=Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth|editor=Terry Mortenson, Thane H Ury|publisher=New Leaf Publishing Group|date=2008|pages=174 ff|chapter=The Genre of Genesis 1:1-2:3:What Means This Text?|isbn=0890515484}} {{unsigned|Ἀλήθεια |03:37, 28 February 2012}}
:::The Evidence Unseen absolutely goes into the creation bits of Genesis. ] (]) 05:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::You're right, but is it consequential? The idea is to get an idea of the way of thinking. ] - ] 06:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::''We'' should not be deciding which sources provide an adequate "idea of the way of thinking". Use a secondary source, not a primary one. ] (]) 16:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you, I approve of that edit as it places 'borrowing' within the context of 'influence'. ] (]) 08:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
=== the combined narrative as a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation===
: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. ] (]) 15:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The body of the article says:
{{talkquote|establishing a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of ] neighbors. (Leeming 2004, Smith 2001)}}
Leeming (2004) Oxford University Press; Smith 2001 Oxford university Press.
Kacie Klamm, Abraham Winitzer (2023), , Oxford Bibliographies:
:: It should be restored and expanded not simply removed. --] (]) 15:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
{{talkquote|If, then, the Bible was to offer something meaningful about such topics, Mesopotamia’s version of events would necessarily have to be addressed. The challenge presented by Mesopotamia, therefore, would amount to a delicate balancing act: How was the Bible to incorporate this ancient tradition while at the same time not losing its own claim for a theological revolution?}}
I also don't see how this could be "too controversial and contested." ] - ] 17:42, 8 September 2024 (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. ] (]) 05:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:I can concede this point if my suggestion in is accepted. The term 'borrowing' in my mind connotes a kind of plagiarism on the part of the biblical authors, whereas what you have quoted speaks of 'imprint'. 'Influence' is another good word, and not even orthodox/fundamentalist scholars would disagree that there was Mesopotamian imprint or influence upon Genesis. ] (]) 23:28, 8 September 2024 (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. ] <sup>]</sup><span class="frac">/</span><sub>]</sub> 18:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::Good; see . Regards, ] - ] 06:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
== Why are editors claiming that all creation story articles have "myth" in the title? ==
=== the interpretation of "God says "Let us make man."===
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.
Ehm... I don't recall where that came from ... The article now says:
{{talkquote|n Genesis 1:26, God says "Let us make man ..." This has given rise to several theories, of which the two most important are that "us" is majestic plural, or that it reflects a setting in a divine council with God enthroned as king and proposing the creation of mankind to the lesser divine beings. A traditional interpretation is that "us" refers to a plurality of persons in the Godhead, which reflects Trinitarianism. Some justify this by stating that the plural reveals a "duality within the Godhead" that recalls the "Spirit of God" mentioned in verse 2; "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters".}}
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 ], we find numerous counter-examples.
:Already resolved (). ] (]) 23:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
There are those which only give the name of the story:
== Expanding the 'Hexameral literature' section ==
*]
*]
*]
*]
I propose that the following expansion be made to this section which at the moment only has one paragraph, and could do with further primary and secondary sources to give a fuller picture of hexameral literature on the Genesis creation narrative. Bouteneff 2008 has been cited as a reliable source since 2010, and no one has produced scholarly judgments to show that Bouteneff is unreliable, so I think it is unreasonable to say this source is so unreliable that all information from it should be immediately removed. In addition, nothing he is saying is controversial; he is just reporting the views of significant commentators in hexameral literature.
And there are those which describe the story, but without using the term "myth":
I'm not opposed to adding more sources to this, and I would appreciate constructive criticism or suggestions to improve this proposed expansion. However I do think it's highly unreasonable to simply delete this information, as has occurred twice now, rather than using the 'one source section' maintenance template which exists for precisely this kind of situation.
*]
*]
*]
*] (Bushmen)
*]
*]
*] (India)
{{talkquote|
] (] - ]) 15:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
====Theophilus of Antioch====
:and there are at least thirty that do include myth in the title.] (]) 15:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The second-century ], wrote a treatise attempting to convince his pagan acquaintance of the Christian faith by discrediting pagan classical literature and prophecy for its alleged contradictions and immorality, while upholding Scripture as possessing "antiquity", predating pagan philosophy. This treatise is known as the ''Letter to Autolycus'' and was cited as an authority by ], ], ], ] and ].{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=68}}
:{{ec}} Are you suggesting that the trusted editors are using hyperbole? I've seen that "quite a bit" before. --] (]) 15:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Theophilus attacks the ] and lack of ] of pagan myths, especially the account of ], lauding the Genesis creation account for its teaching of ]. His interpretation of the creation narrative is at times allegorical, for example, "through the resurrection is signified, for a proof of the future resurrection of all ". The waters are like the Law and the Prophets; the perfect sun is a type for God while the waxing and waning moon is a type for the human person.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=69}} Despite his propensity for allegory, Theophilus does not mention Adam-Christ ] which is present in the works of his contemporaries such as ] and ], as well as in the New Testament, such that his interpretation resembles the Jewish exegesis of ] and the ] on Genesis.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=70}}
:: 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. --] (]) 15:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Theophilus establishes an antithesis between pagan myths, which are regarded as deceitful and novel, and trustworthy ancient history as represented by the Genesis creation narrative. From his conviction of the reliability and antiquity of the prophetic writings, he meticulously calculates a chronology: from the Creation to the Flood was 2,242 years, from the Flood to Abraham, 1,036 years, from Isaac to Moses, 660 years and so on until the death of Roman Emperor ] in AD 180.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=72}} He then evaluates the historicity of the Old Testament.<blockquote>This message is not recent in origin, nor are our writings, as some suppose, mythical and false. They are actually more ancient and trustworthy. lived long after and introduced a multitude of gods. For this reason it is plain that all the rest were in error and that only the Christians have held the truth—we who are instructed by the Holy Spirit who spoke in the holy prophets and foretold everything.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|pp=71–72}}</blockquote>
:::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). ] (]) 15:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
] (c. 1420s) of Basil of Caesarea by ] and ].]]
None of the ones on your second list are article-titles, so please don't pipe them to give the impression.
====Basil's ''Hexaemeron''====
<pre>
Basil's homilies on the six days of creation (''Hexaemeron'') were appreciated widely; by ], ], ] and ]. Basil strongly separates the Genesis creation account from scientific accounts of creation, seeing instead a theological aim in Genesis to teach that "the world was not devised at random or to no purpose, but to contribute to some useful end and to the great advantage of all beings, if it is truly a training place for rational souls and a school for attaining the knowledge of God".{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=133}} Basil's homilies contain both a literalistic element seen in Theophilus, along with a fondness for practical working-class wisdom, as well as an ] element in the Neoplatonic and allegorical concepts such as the notion of the pre-existence of Creation in the mind of God.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=138}}
Basil conceives of Creation as existing conceptually in the mind of God before coming into physical existence by his will, comparing God to "the artist , even before the combination of the parts, knows the beauty of each and approves them individually, directing his judgment to the final aim", claiming this to be the meaning of {{bibleverse|Colossians|1:16|KJV}} ("For by him were all things created").{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=133}} However, Basil criticises the excessive allegorisation of the ], ] and ], taking the terms "light", "darkness" and "deep" as literal appellations, and emphasising that evil has no origin of itself, but rather that it is attributable to the voluntary fall of man.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=134}} He also interprets the days of creation as twenty-four-hour periods.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=134}} Yet, he regards God's sayings "Let there be..." not as a literal spoken word, but as an allegorical "seed" of theology; "the divine will, joined with the first impulse of intelligence, is the Word of God." Basil, like Origen, says that "Theological teachings are scattered as mystical seeds throughout the historical account"; this explains his cautious embrace of allegory alongside the confession of the historicity of the account. On the allegorical interpretations of the "firmament", he says the following.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|pp=134–135}}<blockquote>And if they tell you that the heavens mean contemplative powers, and the firmament active powers which produce good, we admire the theory as ingenious but we will not concede that it is altogether true. For in that case dew, the frost, cold and heat, which in Daniel are ordered to praise the Creator of all things, will be intelligent and invisible natures. But this is only a figure, accepted as such by enlightened minds , to complete the glory of the Creator.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=135}}</blockquote>Basil regards Creation as primarily doxological in glorifying the Creator, and secondarily as ethically instructive, for example in the perceived virtue of animals such as bees and turtles.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|pp=135–136}}<blockquote>I have heard it said that the sea urchin, a little contemptible creature, often foretells calm and tempest to sailors. No astrologer, no Chaldaean, has ever communicated his secret to the urchin: it is the Lord of the sea and of the winds who has impressed on this little animal a manifest proof of his great wisdom. God has foreseen all, he has neglected nothing. His eye, which never sleeps, watches over all. He is present everywhere and gives to each being the means of preservation. If God has not left the sea urchin outside his providence, is he without care for you?{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|pp=135}}</blockquote>Basil's series of homilies on the Hexaemeron were unfinished. There are two homilies on the origin of humanity which present themselves as a continuation of Basil's work, although they differ significantly in style, leading some scholars to doubt their authenticity.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|pp=136–137}} In these homilies, the phrase "Let us make" in Genesis 1 is interpreted as referring to the Trinity, unlike Theophilus. The term "image" is associated with the ], and "likeness" with the human vocation to become like God. These homilies also regard men and women as equal in that they both possess the image and likeness of God, "Nobody may ignorantly ascribe the name of human only to the man. The natures are alike of equal honor, the virtues are equal, the struggles equal, the judgment alike". The "making" of Adam in Genesis 1:27 is seen as referring to the soul while the "fashioning" in Genesis 2:7 refers to the deliberate and meticulous forming of Adam's body.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=137}}}}
{{reflist-talk}}
* {{cite book |last=Bouteneff |first=Peter C. |title=Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narrative |location=Grand Rapids, Michigan |publisher=Baker Academic |date=2008 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=aANpcJF5jDUC&q=Beginnings:+Ancient+Christian+Readings+of+the+Biblical+Creation+Narrative |isbn=978-0-8010-3233-2 |access-date=11 November 2020 |archive-date=8 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230308130405/https://books.google.com/books?id=aANpcJF5jDUC&q=Beginnings:+Ancient+Christian+Readings+of+the+Biblical+Creation+Narrative |url-status=live}}
] (]) 04:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
**This is the sort of thing that should have its own article, with a hyperlink in the see also section.] (]) 01:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
*]
*]
*]
*] (Bushmen)
*]
*]
*] (India)
</pre>
] <sup>]</sup> 16:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::And I find it highly unreasonable that you have such a hidebound determination to add undue ] content to this article with so little respect for establishing an actual consensus to do so when your additions are challenged, you having preferred to bludgeon the page. Looking over your comments on this page one detects a determined (glaring) creationist subtext. This content is more about Hexameral literature than it is about the Genesis creation narrative, so it has no place here. It ''might'' have a place in its own dedicated article. ] (]) 02:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
How many of these articles (and sections) have anything close to any sort of decent article status? 2 are rated stub class, another 6 are rated either start class or c class and only one is rated B class, the other two being unrated by any wikiproject. You appear to be scraping the bottom of the barrel with these articles. Again I also note why is another thread being created on the exact same issue instead of including it in the RFC as a comment. ] (]) 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.)--] (]) 09:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
== Previoustitlesforthis article ==
== Composition of the narrative ==
The article accepts and promotes a very old-fashioned version of the Documentary Hypothesis, ignoring other theories: the current thinking would be that the Torah was composed between 450-250 BC in a series of expansions, with the creation narrative dating from the end of that period. ] (]) 01:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Request:''' I gather from something that was said above that this article was (at one point in the past) entitled "]". 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.? ] (]) 18:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question.
Summary of this FAQ
A large number of these questions are relating to the term creation myth, its meaning and its proper usage in this article.
Creation myth is a formal and proper term used by a wide range of academics and scholars (religious and secular) to define a supernatural account of how life, Earth and everything in general came into existence. This term does not imply falsehood unlike the way that the informal use of the word myth can.
Misplaced Pages:WTA#Myth and Legend clearly states that myth in its informal sense should not be used but also clearly states that we should treat all faiths and beliefs the same (e.g. Not referring to a Christian belief on the one hand and a Hindu myth on the other). Thus all faiths' creation myths are referred to as such in their respective articles as well.
Misplaced Pages:RNPOV states "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." This is also the main thrust of WP:NOT#CENSORED.
Q1: What is the definition of creation myth?
A1: Creation myth is a widely accepted term that has a precise definition that is "a supernatural story or explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe (cosmogony), often as a deliberate act by one or more deities."
Since there is a consensus among reliable sources on this definition, it is used here for the purpose of accuracy and proper word use.
Q2: Why do we use creation myth to describe the subject, even if it might offend readers or conflict with their beliefs?
A2: The term creation myth is used for reasons related to scholarship and research, not out of a desire to offend the feelings or beliefs of Misplaced Pages's readers. While some readers, especially those not familiar with the scholarly terminology referenced when using the term creation myth, might take offense at seeing this subject called a creation myth, Misplaced Pages should not be rewritten just so that certain readers will be more comfortable. The goal in writing the article is to be as neutral and dispassionate in describing this subject, but, as with any contentious topic, it is sometimes not possible to accommodate everyone's feelings while writing a neutral, accurate, verifiable, and sourced-based reference work.
Further information: WP:RNPOV
Q3: Isn't calling this a creation myth the same thing as calling it a fairy tale, since that is one of the informal definitions for the word myth?
A3: No. The term creation myth is a coherent term in its own right that should not be parsed into separate words. The term has a unique meaning different from the informal definitions of the word myth. Just as an electoral college is not an institute of higher learning even though it contains the word college, a creation myth is not necessarily a fairy tale even though it contains the word myth. Formally defined terms provide unambiguous meaning that aid in the presentation of a more accurate and scholarly encyclopedic article.
Further information: WP:WTA § Myth and Legend
Q4: Does this article say or imply that Genesis is not literally true? And if so, is that neutral?
A4: The viewpoint that Genesis is literally true is held by only a tiny minority of sources. Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy does not say that articles must "give equal validity" to such views (see WP:GEVAL). In writing this article it also becomes necessary to proceed with some implicit assumptions that many readers are bound to find controversial (see WP:MNA).
Q5: Why does the article name have "narrative" rather than "myth"?
A5: This has been discussed several times, and there has not been sufficient consensus to change the name of the article.
This article was nominated for deletion on 15 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A fact from Genesis creation narrative appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 February 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
RM, Genesis creation narrative → Genesis creation narratives, Not moved, 16 December 2022, discussion
RM, Genesis creation narrative -> Genesis creation story, Not moved, 7 June 2023, discussion
This article contains bias towards critical scholarship
Arbitrary header #1
This article fails at WP:NPOV, because it presents contested assertions as facts, namely the conclusions of biblical criticism regarding Genesis. As an article in the category 'Religious cosmologies', such statements ought to be presented neutrally. In addition, many biblical scholars (generally those who are not critical scholars) would reject those statements anyway.
'Then what does it mean to say that “most” scholars hold one view or another? It always depends. If you mean “most scholars total” then you would have to include fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. And I frankly don’t know the proportion of evangelical to non-evangelical scholars in the country. That’s why I do not say (or at least try not to say) that “most” scholars think x, y, or z, unless I’m sure that even evangelicals agree on the point (for example, whether the woman taken in adultery was originally in the Gospel of John). What I do say is what most “critical” scholars think, and when I say that, I’m usually pretty sure what I’m talking about.'
My proposed additions below (in bold), reflect Ehrman's practice. They would not only meet the expectation of WP:NPOV, but they would be informative to readers in demonstrating that the qualified statements originated in critical scholarship, rather than scholarship in general.
Objection courtesy of tgeorgescu: These additions should not be made because the opposing (traditional/conservative/evangelical) views are fringe, that is, they are marginalised in reliable sources (WP:NOTNEUTRAL). WP:GEVAL states that 'Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.'
Response: In Ehrman's blog post, he states,
'I do not at all discount what conservative evangelical scholars such as Bock and Keener have to say. (They are smart people and they know a lot about biblical studies.) As a critical scholar myself, I believe in listening to all sides and weighing the evidence to reach a decision – whatever that decision happens to be – i.e. whether it supports a traditional Christian view (about Ephesians, or John, or the dats of NT writings) or not.'
Thus, it appears that an authority does regard evangelical views as worthy of legitimation through comparison to accepted scholarship. Therefore, my proposed additions would not violate WP:NOTNEUTRAL.
Lead (Line 6)According to most critical scholars, The authors of the Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology, but adapted them to their unique belief in one God. Critical models of the composition of the Pentateuch (the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with Deuteronomy) view the first major comprehensive draft as having been composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE (the Jahwist source),then later expanded by other authors (the Priestly source) into a work very like Genesis as known today. The two sources are identified in the creation narrative: Priestly and Jahwistic. The combined narrative is considered a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation:
Composition: Sources (Line 20) Although tradition attributes Genesis to Moses, most critical scholars hold that it, together with the following four books (making up what Jews call the Torah and biblical scholars call the Pentateuch), is "a composite work, the product of many hands and periods." The creation narrative is analysed as consisting of two separate accounts drawn from different sources. The first account in Genesis 1:1–2:4 is from what scholars call the Priestly source (P). The second account, which takes up the rest of Genesis 2, is largely from the Jahwist source (J).
Composition: Structure (Line 27)Consistency was evidently not seen as essential to storytelling in ancient Near Eastern literature. The overlapping stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are often regarded as contradictory but also complementary, with the first (the Priestly story) concerned with the creation of the entire cosmos while the second (the Jahwist story) focuses on man as moral agent and cultivator of his environment. The highly regimented seven-day narrative of Genesis 1 features an omnipotent God who creates a god-resembling humanity, while the one-day creation of Genesis 2 uses a simple linear narrative, a God who can fail as well as succeed, and a humanity which is not god-like but is punished for attempting to become god-like, although not all scholars share these interpretations. Even the order and method of creation differs. "Together, this combination of parallel character and contrasting profile point to the different origin of materials in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, however elegantly they have now been combined." These differences motivate critical scholars to conclude that consistency was not seen as essential to storytelling in ancient Near Eastern literature. (Note b: Levenson 2004)Violoncello10104 (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you. The current article does violate WP:NPOV by presenting contested scholarly interpretations as facts. Your proposed edits would better align with NPOV by clarifying that these views are held by "most critical scholars" rather than presenting their conclusions as undisputed facts. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, "biased statements of opinion can be presented only with inline attribution."
WP:DUE is also relevant here. While we shouldn't give undue weight to "minority" views, we also shouldn't present "majority" views as universal facts. Your proposal strikes a better balance. The WP:SCHOLARSHIP guideline encourages presenting multiple scholarly viewpoints when they exist as well. ViolanteMD21:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm unlikely to respond in any detail today due to some horrible chemotherapy. But, and I don't mean to be rude, both of you are very new editors and I'm not convinced you understand our policy. More tomorrow if I feel well enough. Doug Wellertalk06:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
It is well to recognize that the dominant viewpoint among scientists is not the only one. There are various minority viewpoints, represented by qualified scientists, but these viewpoints are largely suppressed by majority voices, by active persecution, and by selective reporting in the media.
Poythress, Vern S.. Interpreting Eden: A Guide to Faithfully Reading and Understanding Genesis 1-3 (p. 21). Crossway. Kindle Edition. ViolanteMD10:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
We aren't going to be using something published by Crossway as a guiding light. This is an encyclopedia, not a campus bible study. jps (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the links. My proposal does not include any additions of content, so I believe the charge of 'ventilating pseudohistory' is irrelevant. I merely proposed attribution to certain claims which are both controversial and contested in biblical scholarship, and do not represent a consensus of experts, even within critical scholarship (cf. Ehrman). Violoncello10104 (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm no theologian, but an experienced Wikipedian, and to me the most important point here is that Misplaced Pages is a mainstream encyclopedia. Biblical criticism, "the use of critical analysis to understand and explain the Bible without appealing to the supernatural" is the mainstream academic approach to the Bible. That's the reason I reverted Violoncello's edit here, where they added phrasing like "According to mainstream biblical scholars, the authors of the Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes, etc" to the previous "The authors of the Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes, etc", added "most biblical scholars" to "biblical scholars" and turned the phrasing "The creation narrative consists of two separate accounts" into "Scholars analyse the creation narrative as consisting of two separate accounts". All of these changes tend to create a false balance between mainstream scholars (again, Biblical criticism) and the Documentary hypothesis and similar theories. It unduly legitimizes the documentary hypothesis. Violoncello10104 and ViolanteMD, I'm not saying your use of the word "neutral", as in "As an article in the category 'Religious cosmologies', such statements ought to be presented neutrally", is wrong (and it's very, very common amongst new users). But its implication that Misplaced Pages should not take sides between non-religious and religious criticism goes completely against Misplaced Pages's policy Neutral point of view, which may be designated a term of art. I quote the policy: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice, for example the sky is blue not believes the sky is blue." We should actually present the mainstream consensus as undisputed facts. Bishonen | tålk08:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC).
It is called "neutral point of view", but a proper name would be "normative point of view". Like a civics teacher does not teach his/her own opinions, nor a mixed bag of all opinions, but the normative views of the society. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you both for your input on this matter. I appreciate the references to various Misplaced Pages policies, but I believe there's still a crucial point being overlooked.
I'm not advocating for the promotion of pseudohistory or fringe theories. I fully agree that Misplaced Pages should rely on mainstream academic sources and not be a platform for marginal or discredited ideas.
However, there's a critical distinction we need to make when dealing with religious topics. The purpose of an encyclopedic article about a religious concept or belief is primarily to explain what that belief entails, not to debate its historical accuracy or scientific validity.
When we describe what Christians believe about the Trinity or what Muslims believe about the Night Journey, we're not making historical claims. We're representing the content of a belief system. This is not pseudohistory.
I agree that "What is fine and dandy as theology could be utter crap as history." But that's precisely why we need to clearly delineate between theological claims and historical ones. A statement like "Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead" is not a historical claim; it's an accurate representation of a Christian belief.
While I understand the importance of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MAINSTREAM, we must apply these carefully in religious contexts. Presenting mainstream academic criticism of religious beliefs as the primary content, rather than the beliefs themselves, could be seen as violating NPOV by unduly favoring one perspective (academic) over another (believer's).
I'm not suggesting we ignore academic or critical perspectives. But they should not overshadow or replace the primary explanation of what the belief actually entails.
Most readers coming to an article about a religious concept are likely seeking to understand what that concept means within its religious context, not primarily its academic critiques. It originated in its religious context.
I'm advocating for a nuanced approach that accurately represents religious beliefs as they are understood by adherents, clearly distinguishes between claims of faith and historical/scientific claims and includes relevant academic perspectives and criticisms where appropriate, without letting these dominate the main explanation of the belief.
This approach, I believe, better serves our readers and more accurately fulfills the role of an encyclopedia in explaining religious concepts. I hope this clarifies my position and opens up a constructive dialogue on how we can best handle these sensitive topics. Or you could just call me "too new to know better" again and not address my actual points. ViolanteMD10:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Most readers coming to an article about a religious concept are likely seeking to understand what that concept means within its religious context, not primarily its academic critiques. I don't agree that this is likely, and think that most readers consult Misplaced Pages for mainstream academic consensus on their topics of interest. Misplaced Pages is built upon mainstream scholarship.I might be biased here because I have a lot of experience with textual history, and early Biblical narratives are super interesting in critical literature studies.As an aside, I do identify as a person of faith, and I never edit in the topic area of my own faith. It's upsetting, unwinnable, and contrary to the principles of Misplaced Pages, whether I like it or not. That's good, in that it makes the project stronger with respect to the terms on which it is constituted. We should all avoid editing in areas where we feel a strong emotional response, or possess experiential knowledge that is not grounded in published sources informed by Western / scientific ways of knowing.Content policies do in fact stipulate that academic and critical perspectives form the bulk of our prose, and overshadow religious teachings. Placing published mainstream scholarship on the same level as religious beliefs is WP:FALSEBALANCE. NPOV does not mean "median point of view", nor "attributing to named individuals everything disagreed with by anyone". We don't really have special carveouts for religious topics. We still treat them as encyclopaedia topics.I'm sorry if you're feeling stung for being called out for rookie misunderstandings. I hope you stick around and continue learning how our community operates. Blessings, Folly Mox (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
'I quote the policy: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice'
It seems to me that our disagreement lies in whether the non-critical claims in question are uncontested and uncontroversial, and not in whether fringe views should be given validity. If they are not uncontested and uncontroversial, then they ought to be attributed to a school of thought or scholar. In my original post, I gave Ehrman (a leading critical scholar) as an authority to determine this. He states, 'I do not say (or at least try not to say) that “most” scholars think x, y, or z, unless I’m sure that even evangelicals agree on the point (for example, whether the woman taken in adultery was originally in the Gospel of John). What I do say is what most “critical” scholars think'. It appears that Ehrman regards matters in which critical and traditional scholars disagree to be controversial, and thus will attribute a view to a school of thought, not presenting it as if it were an uncontested fact. Given this authoritative judgment, we should accordingly change our view of what is mainstream and fringe, or controversial and uncontroversial.
I also agree with @ViolanteMD's reply to you which has some great arguments, such as how the current article is misleading to people who are interested in what traditional Christians/Jews believe, since it presents critical assertions (e.g. Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic) without attribution as if they were uncontested by traditional scholars. Violoncello10104 (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
we should accordingly change our view of what is mainstream and fringe, or controversial and uncontroversial—this talk page isn't meant for changing WP:PAGs.
About the Documentary Hypothesis: it is no longer the only game in town, but not because mainstream scholars are now more inclined with biblicist scholars.
Biblicism says that the Bible is historically accurate, despite the actual historical and archaeological record. Therefore, when biblicist scholars write the history of the Bible, they are writing pseudohistory. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate your point that the Documentary Hypothesis is "no longer the only game in town." This actually reinforces the argument for a more nuanced presentation. If there are multiple scholarly perspectives within mainstream Biblical criticism, shouldn't we aim to represent that diversity of thought? Maybe we could:
Present the traditional religious understanding of the text held by those who are of the faith
Introduce mainstream critical scholarship, noting that the Documentary Hypothesis was once dominant and that there are now multiple scholarly approaches within Biblical criticism
Briefly outline areas of agreement/disagreement
This approach would adhere to existing policies and provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of both the religious significance and the current state of academic discourse around this topic. ViolanteMD11:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I was not at all proposing a change of policy. I was saying that the current application of the policy is incorrect given what an authority in biblical scholarship says about what is controversial and uncontroversial in his field. Violoncello10104 (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
To your second point, there's a difference between saying:
"The Bible is historically accurate in all details." (a Biblicist claim)
"Many Christians believe the Bible to be historically accurate." (a statement about religious belief)
"Archaeological and historical evidence supports some Biblical accounts while contradicting others." (a summary of scholarly historical research)
My concern is that by presenting only critical scholarly views without clear attribution, we might inadvertently misrepresent the beliefs held by many religious adherents. I think I've stated this on other pages related to Christianity that we've run into one another on. ViolanteMD12:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
@ViolanteMD@Violoncello10104 Ok. Two WP:Administrators disagree with you, me and Bishonen, and together we have made over 300,000 edits. A main reason we were elected was that our knowledge of policy and guidelines was good enough that when editors consistently broke them we could block them with confidence. tgeorgescu had over 50,000 edits, many of them in this field. What are the odds that the two of you know more than we do? Doug Wellertalk10:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I respect your position and I'm sure you do know than me. I'm interested in your assessment of my argument. Quoting WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, 'In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.' Please know that I am not quoting that to disrespect you or the others. I have an argument which is logical, in line with the current policies, with support from an expert. This was the basis for making this discussion topic. Violoncello10104 (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see they actually are a native speaker. My bad. I guess ChatGPT is cranking out material with obvious grammatical errors in it like this nowadays. Those pesky generative AI chat bots... ViolanteMD11:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
"I could be mistaken" following a direct personal attack is not a defense. Please just move on. These epic threads do little good. Just10A (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I admit that I have conflated the two Viol-something. But in respect to one of them, it is not WP:PA, since it is highly likely at least one of their replies is AI-generated. I mean: if they did use ChatGPT (or something like that), and I accused them of using ChatGPT, it isn't a personal attack. It's just a fact pertaining to their edits. I cannot be blamed for noticing they did, nor for spilling the beans about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
The results I got from different scanners: 0%, 70%, 95%, 100% and 100% AI-written (I did not scan their username as included in the post). I'm not saying this is bulletproof, but it seems to confirm my intuition. I mean: people do not write like that. Especially when they're not writing official reports for the government. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your post, it was most informative. Some people do in fact write like that. I've spent most of my life being told that I "talk funny". Thanks for that! ViolanteMD08:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
And the answer is that, despite your protestations, reliable historical research is done by critical scholars only. Other views may by WP:CITED, but only critical scholars speak in the name of the mainstream academia and in the name of mainstream history. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
"due to some horrible chemotherapy" Don't take this as an insult Doug, but you are not as energetic as you were in your prime. Do you really want to spend your remaining time and energy in the never-ending dramas of Misplaced Pages's talk pages? They are probaby not beneficial to your state of mind. Personally, I often find myself contemplating the futility of reaching for a compromise through them. Dimadick (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Your claim is overly restrictive and misrepresents academic diversity. "Critical scholars" aren't the sole arbiters of reliable historical research. Mainstream academia includes various methodologies and perspectives in Biblical studies. This stance contradicts Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy and could lead to biased articles. A more balanced approach would accurately represent the spectrum of scholarly opinion while maintaining standards for reliable sources. ViolanteMD10:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
From what I know, I'll agree that New Testament scholars may "often train as historians", but the problem is that some of the stuff you can get published as an NT scholar (in theological journals) would basically be laughed or booed off the stage if presented to a roomful of historians. That you even have such a thing as inerrantism in NT scholarship is indicative of the difference (because inerrantism is a downright anti-historical concept). I agree that not all of NT scholarship necessarily suffers from this problem, but it needs to be factored in when questions of "scholarly consensus" among NT scholars is cited. It simply has to be remembered that a consensus among NT scholars has at least some aspects of a consensus among theologians and is thus not directly equivalent to a consensus among historians, archaeologists or other academic fields. The problem is that such an adjustment would probably run counter to both Misplaced Pages policy on neutrality and fringe views, because the overwhelming majority of NT scholars are theologians and professing Christians (as the minority who aren't will be quick to point out). This is again a rather unsurprising consequence of both the nature of the field of study (believers are basically more likely to take up the study of their faith) and its tight connection to theology (I can't think of that many NT studies institutions which aren't run by Theology departments). Being that closely connected to theology also means that issues of controversy quickly becomes issues of faith and orthodoxy to a degree rarely found in other academic disciplines. Mojowiha (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Dismissing all NT scholarship as unreliable is an overreach. Many NT scholars employ rigorous historical methods. The existence of some theologically-biased work doesn't invalidate the entire field.
Your argument seems to be an attempt to systematically exclude NT scholarship from Misplaced Pages under the guise of maintaining academic rigor. This approach would itself introduce significant bias. Misplaced Pages's goal should be to accurately capture the range of scholarly views, including mainstream historical perspectives and the diversity within NT scholarship. This would align with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE policies.
Any article discussing religious beliefs must also accurately describe what the believers actually believe. Failure to do so renders the article fundamentally flawed, misrepresentative, and potentially useless. Accurate representation of religious beliefs is crucial. Dismissing it as unimportant undermines the validity of the entire discussion, regardless of one's personal stance on religion. It's not our role to judge these beliefs, but to present them accurately.
Instead of blanket exclusion, we should critically evaluate sources, clearly attribute claims, and provide context for different scholarly approaches and beliefs. This maintains neutrality while acknowledging the field's complexities.
WP:RULES are meant to ensure comprehensive, balanced articles, not to exclude entire academic disciplines or misrepresent belief systems based on personal biases. ViolanteMD10:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
No, I'm not using ChatGPT but I noticed you also accused the other user commenting of the same thing. Interesting take from someone whose main refutations besides one-liners are just kopipe.
Your definition of "critical scholarship" is overly narrow; it's not the only valid approach to Biblical studies. Misplaced Pages should represent the full spectrum of scholarly approaches, not just those focused on source criticism. This aligns with WP:NPOV and ensures comprehensive coverage of the field. ViolanteMD10:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
If it sounds like the prose of a full professor, writing a paper for the government, who employed several proofreaders, then it is perhaps computer-generated.
Also, some scholars may be WP:CITED, but we don't cite them as they were mainstream historians.
Purely theological exegesis is okay, but it does not count as history.
An obvious point: if they don't abide by the historical method, they are not writing history. They may be writing theology or apologetics, but not history.
If one wants to write history, there are shared rules and shared assumptions for doing so. There is certain stuff which historical research cannot deliver. It cannot say whether Jesus is God or whether Jesus got resurrected, since that is not a matter of historical record.
There can be no evidence that Jesus is God and there can be no evidence that Jesus isn't God. That's not a matter predicated upon objective historical evidence.
In mainstream history, the sentence "Jesus is God" does not have a truth value. It is neither true, nor false.
If one is writing a historical paper, they cannot claim that Jesus is God, nor that Jesus isn't God. That would be utterly puerile.
There are some very important questions, which nevertheless cannot be answered objectively. Pretending otherwise just makes the matter worse. Some stuff is just faith, not history. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I am an MD/PhD with a job in technical writing, but the real answer must be that I'm several teenagers inside of a trench coat using ChatGPT to generate my responses, and not that this article violates WP:NPOV. ViolanteMD08:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
More to the point: despite its sophisticated prose, your argument is essentially a red herring. Since it does not use WP:PAG-based definitions of the terms, but English language dictionaries definitions.tgeorgescu (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
We should refocus on the content and policies rather than making assumptions about intentions. Our focus should be on the quality and accuracy of contributions and evaluating edits. If there are specific policies you believe I've misinterpreted, I'm open to discussing them. Ideally something beyond just criticizing the way that I write.
Instead of telling me to "drop this," I think I'll reach out for help. In the mean time, I insist that we attribute information to the originating sources in order to make it plain where the information is coming from. ViolanteMD09:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
If you want to present scholarship as "critical scholarship" or "mainstream scholarship," you'll also have to present an overview of the views of non-critical ('traditional', conservative Evangelical) scholarship on these matters. That's possible, akin to the overview at Christ Myth theory, or (preferably) as a separate subsection, which is already there (but not very well written): Genesis creation narrative#Creationism and the genre of the creation narrative. The question is: are those views significant? More precise: are they relevant as scholarly views, or as religious views? As religious views, a short explanation, in a section on religious views, would be: 'Conservative Evangelicals view the creation story as...'.
Without such an addition I also see no point in the attribution, except for the implication that it is 'just an opinion', or as a signal-word akin to "leftish" at India-related pages. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!04:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
the existence of two separate creation-narratives;
separate authorship for the two different creation-narratives ( "Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic")
the existence of contradictions between these two narratives;
Mesopotamian influence:
borrowing of themes from Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology;
the combined narrative as a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation;
Sixth day:
the interpretation of "God says "Let us make man."
According to Violincello10104, the conclusions of critical scholarship are in fact too controversial and contested to be stated as if they were facts. Maybe we can make a fresh start with the contested points above, and suggestions for additions, with relevant literature? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!16:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate this very much, as a detailed examination of my original argument is what I was looking for. I feel once we have discussed this there will be no need for the DRN so I will write that I would like to put that on hold at least for the moment. Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
scholars have thought that the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), were not written by Moses, but later, and that they represent not a single work by a single author, but a compilation of sources, each of them written at different times. The evidence for this view is quite overwhelming The internal tensions in the Pentateuch came to be seen as particularly significant. Nowhere were these tensions more evident than in the opening accounts of the very first book, in the creation stories of Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Scholars came to recognize that what is said in Genesis 1 cannot be easily (or at all) reconciled with what is said in Genesis 2. These do not appear to be two complementary accounts of how the creation took place; they appear to be two accounts that are at odds with each other in fundamental and striking ways.
As explained in its main article, the documentary hypothesis has been partially replaced by a fragmentary hypothesis: "the Pentateuch is seen as a compilation of short, independent narratives, which were gradually brought together into larger units in two editorial phases: the Deuteronomic and the Priestly phases." So instead of four main sources, there may have been numerous texts edited into the Pentateuch. Dimadick (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Preceding Ehrman's quote, this statement from VC from the DNR:
According to ViolanteMD and myself, the positive claims of critical scholarship regarding the Genesis creation narrative, namely its composite authorship and inconsistent content (e.g., Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are said to have been written by a 'Priestly' and 'Jahwistic' source respectively, and contradict each other in their doctrines of God and humanity), are contested and controversial, which is reflected in Bart Ehrman's practice of not even attributing a claim to 'most' scholars unless traditional scholars also agree.
Ehrman here does not say "most scholars," but he also doesn't say critical scholars"; he just says "scholars," and seems to be quite outspoken that this is broadly accepted. So, VC's 'Ehrman-criterium' seems to be met here.
The book of Genesis is the first book of the Pentateuch, as the first five books of the Hebrew Bible are known. This includes Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Tradition says that Moses wrote these five books but the scholarly consensus is that Moses didn’t write any of them.
That is evidence of inconsistency on the part of Ehrman, according to his own principle in the blog post I gave, he ought to have said 'the consensus of critical scholarship' or something like that, as he says 'What I do say is what most “critical” scholars think, and when I say that, I’m usually pretty sure what I’m talking about. I might make a mistake about that on occasion.' Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
separate authorship ( "Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic")
Solved:
Although Orthodox Jews and "fundamentalist Christians" attribute the Genesis to Moses "as a matter of faith," the Mosaic authorship has been questioned since the 11th century, and has been rejected in scholarship since the 17th century. Scholars of Biblical criticism conclude that it, together with the following four books (making up what Jews call the Torah and biblical scholars call the Pentateuch), is "a composite work, the product of many hands and periods."
I'm not proposing for any additional info to be given, but for attribution of critical scholarship to critical views to be given (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV]). I do not know what the source of this quote is, but that is precisely what I am requesting for this article. At the very least, an acknowledgment that scholars 'of biblical criticism' conclude separate authorship. I would actually endorse the insertion of this quotation in the article somehow, and would consider my concerns allayed on that point. Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Although this goes beyond my proposal, I think it would be beneficial to include the first sentence about the views of Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians. The quote is an excellent and brief summary of the authorship question. Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
What kind of weighting do you think we should give to the (often contradictory) opinions of religious extremists about this particular mythology? jps (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
This is serious. Unless there is a coherent argument to the contrary, I think that the views of Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians as believers in thing mythology are not relevant to the subject of this article and certainly don't belong in the lede. jps (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Discarding scholars because of their religious views, especially when some of them are respected among critical scholars, is never a good idea. If you label this as 'fundamentalist religious POV pushing,' then what you are doing—discarding scholarship based on religion and your own understanding of the world—can be labeled as communist POV pushing, or perhaps as POV pushing from someone who doesn’t like Christians and Jews. As far as I can see, it’s not the Christians and Jews who have an issue with NPOV here, but the editors who call them extremists. Yes, proper attribution must always be provided, such as according to conservative views and according to more mainstream or critical views. However, I don’t think omitting it would be appropriate or NPOV, as they are still scholars with their own reasoning. I mean, it’s up to the readers to discard their theories as nonsense based on the reasoning of science and other considerations, or they may take away other lessons. We should not be the ones to decide which views to censor based on religion if there is sufficient scholarship about it. Thanks. DangalOh (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
If people argue for demonstrably incorrect things as do those who believe in what they call the literal interpretation of the bible, we are under no obligation to spread their opinions. jps (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Traditional views do not necessarily mean literal interpretation. They have philosophical inquiry at their core, especially if the religion itself is not extremely rigid. In this case, I don’t see how traditional views can act exclusively as a support for literal translation. If it’s not already clear enough in the article, maybe someone can work on that (that literal translations without nuance are highly unlikely). More distinction might be required between literal translations and movements that believe in them, and the traditional views of many other denominations, which I agree often come across as apologetics for the religion itself. That’s why I believe attribution is necessary. Still, I don’t see any reason to remove them if they have enough relevant scholarship. Let the readers decide about critical views and apologetic views. There’s no need to censor 'scholars' of one side. DangalOh (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I think we should include them if third parties have commented on them. But as singular statements of opinion, they don't belong in Misplaced Pages. There are certain ideas (e.g. "Moses authored the Pentateuch") which deserve inclusion because there are third-party scholars that comment on such claims. But detailed analyses trying to shoe-horn some orthodox religious interpretation as worthy "on the other hand" points do not deserve inclusion unless others have commented on them. jps (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Unless others might have commented on them might not be very reflective of the point I was making. In any case, even for that, you need to engage constructively, section by section, with the editors involved, and put forward your objections before deciding on some adjustments. Questions like "How fringe is the view? Is it part of the tradition or a single fringe scholar trying to come up with something new?" etc. should be discussed and analyzed there with the editors involved. But if you act in bad faith and behave as though you are here just to discredit something and resort to name-calling like "extremists," then I don’t think many here would be willing to engage with you, and you will be dismissed on the grounds of bigotry, not because your points were or will not be good enough. I don’t know what your points will be but it was not good enough earlier; I hope you understand what I am trying to say. Also, Traditional views may often claim divinity in them, but then we have a section of critical views to debunk or challenge them. And as I said, leave that to the readers; if someone is more inclined toward science, they will lean more toward critical views, in any case. My job is done here. I’ve given my opinion. Now I rest (hopefully not in peace). Have a good day! DangalOh (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
He is not against Jews and Christians, since nobody would accept that. He is against fundamentalists trying to pass for historians.
And that’s what I said: fringe claims or sources, such as those trying to prove that the literal meaning of the verses is exactly as written word for word, should be singled out. That is not philosophy. Still, I’m not entirely in favor of completely removing them. I mean, don’t you think the more ridiculous the claim, the easier it is to debunk? On the other hand, you cannot debunk a philosophy, like, for example, the concept of the Trinity and nuances such as the Royal We and singular Elohim which are traditional views held by an extremely large group. These are not fringe claims, nor are they based on literal written meanings, but might be more rooted in belief. They are forms of philosophy that emerged from those scriptures through some form of reasoning. As I said, if someone has a problem with the concept of belief in divinity, they should discuss it in the next section under critical or mainstream analysis using science, logic, facts, reality, or whatever they have in their arsenal. My point is there’s no problem including how Christians and Jews view their scriptures unless it’s extremely ridiculous, like a literal word-for-word interpretation. I would even argue that labeling these people as extremists is not justified unless they are imposing that belief on you forcefully. Everyone deserves to live their life their way peacefully until they disturb others, so it’s better to refrain from labels. Soooo, now I’m going to sleep for real... Have a good day! DangalOh (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
If you can find independent sources who discuss how Christians or Jews view this scripture as it relates to the scripture itself, that's fine. What is not okay is passing off the musings of the faithful that no one has bothered to address in the scholarly literature. jps (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
So... the views of those who continue the Biblical traditions are not relevant, only those of whom questioned these beliefs and rejected them? It means you remove the context and background of critical Bible-studies; that's a pityfull impoverishment. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!17:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
What basis do you have for thinking that believers in demonstrably incorrect things deserve space in Misplaced Pages articles? I mean, things like "this story happened as written". jps (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're severely strawmanning the views of religous critical scholars. I think that your classification of Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians as "religious extremists" and Christianity as "mythology", despite that not being the mainstream terms to describe them, speaks for itself. I think its evident that you're not going to get consensus here. Just10A (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
What are you talking about? How is a literal interpretation of the bible not religious extremism? How is this not mythology? Who in the mainstream disputes either point? jps (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
This isn't a "literal interpretation" issue. Nowhere in Genesis does it say Moses wrote it. Moses isn't even mentioned in Genesis. . The idea that Moses wrote it comes from tradition and/or extrapolation from statements that he wrote totally different books. Not literal interpretation of Genesis. This is what editors are talking about. You're clearly inserting your own bias into this by using fringe theory, negative connotation terms and then shifting the talk to literal interpretation debates, despite it not even being the issue here. @DangalOh Already outlined it nicely. You're clearly contrary to editor consensus and no one wants to engage with you because of your name-calling tactics. Probably best to move on. Just10A (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
It is a literal interpretation issue. The sources that are being quoted seem to believe in a literal interpretation. They are being put back into the article for false balance. That's not okay. No reliable sources should be referencing Answers in Genesis for anything but the recognition that they are the butt of jokes on the internet. jps (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Well that's great, but "The sources that are being quoted seem to believe in a literal interpretation. is WP:OR. We don't go off of what editors think the sources seem like to them. So on top of you being over-ridden by consensus. It's contrary to policy. Just10A (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:OR is a recommendation for article writing. It is not a charge that we must act the fool on a talkpage when a source is presented as scholarship which is actually just creationist claptrap. jps (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
It is not merely a recommendation. WP:OR is wikipedia policy. The only exception is via an "ignore all rules" scenario, and that is clearly not met here. Particularly since you're contrary to consensus. Just10A (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Lol! WP:OR applies to articlespace only. I have no intention of changing course. Feel free to file a case with a drahmaboard if you think it's a problem. jps (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I have made an evaluation of a source. Answers in Genesis is garbage as far as a source for anything goes. They deserve to be excised. Go ahead and complain to the admins that I hurt the feelings of acolytes of that website. I don't care. jps (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Why can't you wait for other editors who might share your position? Instead, you are being rude for no reason and acting like a child when you don’t get what you want. I don’t care about the source or what's taken from it, as long as it’s attributed; that’s fine. It’s not like people have written a golden article on AIG , so why even care? Readers can easily check the details about the organization from which the content is sourced right here on Misplaced Pages if they don’t already know. Attribution is key. You are asking for complete censorship. After this attitude, you are also throwing tantrums. Because of this behavior, other proper editors who might have shared your stance will run away. You are crossing the line between criticism and pure hatred. I have nothing more to say to you. DangalOh (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
No. It's not good enough to say, "Readers can check where the information is from". Misplaced Pages should not link to incorrect information. That's all that Answers in Genesis provides. This is a hill I am willing to die on. Try to take me out if you would like.
There is nothing rude about this. It's just a terrible source and it needs to be removed. I cannot conscience the idea of students coming to this page looking for accurate information and being told, "hey, check out these charlatans". No, that's not what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about.
WP:OR is not banned from talk pages and crying OR does not prevent the editors from recognizing WP:BLUE stuff. We have to call a spade a spade in the talk pages, regardless of whether a full professor already did that for us. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Think you need to re-read my comment at 18:41. Regardless, editors have already patiently explained to you two why your positions are contrary to policy, and you have cited nothing to support your statements. And now, since you guys resorted to name-calling and overall rudeness, people aren’t interested in walking you through it again or engaging with you anymore. You were contrary to consensus, you tried to explained your position, and the consensus was not swayed. Move on. Just10A (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
This article cites Ken Ham? (yes, at the moment) Answers in Genesis? (yes, it does). For shame. Neither is a reliable source for any information, including about themselves, and they have no place in this article. Carlstak (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I transferred the sentence with the Ham citation verbatim from the old 'Framework interpretation' article (due to the merge), where it was added over ten years ago. The sentence in question is describing the views of biblical literalist young-earth creationists. I actually would prefer another source because he is considered fringe even among evangelicals. I also think there could be a better replacement for AiG. I will do some research and find something in the next few days then propose it here.
My mistake, this is actually a part of the article already hahaha. Since this is already the practice of the article, what is wrong with applying it consistently? In other words, what is your disagreement with my proposed edits to Lines 6, 20 and 27 (not with respect to Mesopotamian influence on this point)? Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
the existence of contradictions between these two narratives
The overlapping stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are often regarded as contradictory but also complementary - "often" is imprecise; I'd say "usually," and have added this. I've already added a note there, with the Ehrman-quote, and the line For an apologetic view, see Wayne Jackson Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?, Apologetics Press. We could precede that line with something like "Conservative/Evangelical Christians view the two stories as mutually dependend stories which form one narrative." One source (random, Google "evangelicals genesis one narrative"): J. Daryl Charles (ed.)(2013), Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation, Hendrickson Publishers, p.2-3, mentions literary versus literal reading, and historical versus literary. I've added this to the Ehrman-Jackson note.
although not all scholars share these interpretations. - imprecise; state "X (kind of) scholars are of the opinion that ... ," which could be added to a note. It's not clear now at all which scholars you'r ereferring to, what they object to, and what alternative they propose.
I'm not sure what your opinion is on my 'Ehrman-criterium' (especially given my response to you in ), but if we accept it, then the second sentence in the lead paragraph 'The first account, in Genesis 1:1–2:4, is from what scholars call the Priestly source (P)', should be preceded by some statement like, 'According to traditional interpretation, the Pentateuch in its entirety was written by Moses as an inspired and infallible work , while critical models of the composition of the Pentateuch (the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with Deuteronomy), the first account...' This also applies to the first paragraph of Note b. Also cut out the sentence 'drawn from different sources' and move the note to the second sentence. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
That's perfect except for the word 'mainstream'. My argument (and the Ehrman-criterium) necessitate that this word should be replaced by 'critical'. Otherwise, there is no point in mentioning the traditional view since composite authorship is an 'uncontroversial and uncontested fact'. This is in reference to WP:GEVAL which has this 'fringe/mainstream' dichotomy that's been extensively debated on this talk page. Unrelated note: you can remove the first appearance of Note b since it now comes twice in one sentence. Violoncello10104 (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
No. You can't ad hoc interpret your 'Ehrman-criterium' to make it fit your preferences. Ehrman, in two differnt writings, clearly states "scholarly concensus" and "scholars," not "critical scholars" or "Biblical criticism," nor "mainstream. I've changed it to plain "scholars," per Ehrman. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!07:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I have never said that Ehrman possesses supernatural infallibility in his writings. In determining what views 'mainstream scholarship' includes, I consulted the opinion of an expert in the field, who states that he does not discount evangelical scholars and will not attribute a conclusion to 'most scholars' unless evangelicals agree. His practice in other writings is totally irrelevant. I am interested in his opinion on this matter specifically. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
To be honest, with respect to NPOV I think this article is fine now and I have no further qualms. But my original argument aside, I think 'critical' should be added before 'scholars' for the sake of clarity. Jewish and Christian tradition maintain textual unity, now 'scholars' dispute this. Why? The reason for this is biblical criticism, therefore this should be specified. Violoncello10104 (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
'The highly regimented seven-day narrative of Genesis 1 features an omnipotent God who creates a god-resembling humanity, while the one-day creation of Genesis 2 uses a simple linear narrative, a God who can fail as well as succeed, and a humanity which is not god-like but is punished for attempting to become god-like.' This sentence would be denied by any traditional scholar (including any traditional/orthodox Christian or Jew). As per the Ehrman-criterium (really WP:NPOV), it must not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice but qualified to critical and/or liberal scholars. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: Article XIV. We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture. We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.
We have also seen that the assertion that the P account lacks anthropomorphisms is mistaken: the first pericope actually depends on an anthropomorphic presentation, where God is a craftsman going through his workweek, taking his rest each evening, and then enjoying his Sabbath. This merges with the anthropomorphic presentation of the second pericope, in which God "forms" the man like a potter and "builds" the woman. Further, we have already seen that, while the first pericope certainly does emphasize God's transcendence, it is far from presenting him as distant or aloof. In fact it invites us to enter into aspects of God's own experience, and to imitate his model. Where does this leave us? Do these pericopes come from separate sources or not? There is no way to answer this question, since the putative sources no longer exist. But for each feature that is put forward to support the source theory, it turns out that literary and grammatical considerations supply a better explanation in terms of the overall flow of the narrative. In other words, if someone produced this text by stitching sources together, he left the seams smooth indeed.
(Genesis 1—4 : a linguistic, literary, and theological commentary, C. John Collins, 2006, P&R Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, New Jersey, pp. 230-231) Composite authorship is contested and controversial. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I approve of this now since you added 'According to Carr,' however you might like to add this argumentation from Collins in response to Carr to round out the POV of this article. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
The imprint of Mesopotamia’s mythic thought and literature on Genesis’ Primeval History (Genesis 1–11) is hard to overstate, even if the biblical unit also contains much that is non-Mesopotamian in origins, and even if it must ultimately be considered on its own terms and, more broadly, those of the Bible as a whole. But these factors cannot take away from the place of Mesopotamia’s stories of origins in the Bible’s opening chapters; and the latter, remarkably, do not fully conceal these antecedents. To the contrary, in its layout the biblical text appears frank about the locale of what preceded its eventual epic-making call to Abraham to “go forth” (Gen. 12:1) from his homeland and begin anew in a faraway place.
The 'imprint of Mesopotamia's mythic thought and literature on Genesis' is different from 'borrowing of themes'. Notice that Klamm and Winitzer qualify their statement, saying '... is hard to overstate, even if the biblical unit also contains much that is non-Mesopotamian in origins, and even if it must ultimately be considered on its own terms and, more broadly, those of the Bible as a whole.' I believe the current wording of 'borrowing' is too broad and does not give the nuance which Klamm and Winitzer express. Again, I would endorse the addition of the wording of this quote into the article. Violoncello10104 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
@Violoncello10104: Sarna (1997) says "borrowed some themes"; that's in line with the nuance you're looking for. I've added "some" to the text, and changed the sentence in the lead into
@Dimadick: those two internet-articles are linked in a note, as examples of the conservative/Evangelical view; I wouldn't use them as sources, just as 'illustrations'. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!05:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
We should not be deciding which sources provide an adequate "idea of the way of thinking". Use a secondary source, not a primary one. jps (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
If, then, the Bible was to offer something meaningful about such topics, Mesopotamia’s version of events would necessarily have to be addressed. The challenge presented by Mesopotamia, therefore, would amount to a delicate balancing act: How was the Bible to incorporate this ancient tradition while at the same time not losing its own claim for a theological revolution?
I can concede this point if my suggestion in is accepted. The term 'borrowing' in my mind connotes a kind of plagiarism on the part of the biblical authors, whereas what you have quoted speaks of 'imprint'. 'Influence' is another good word, and not even orthodox/fundamentalist scholars would disagree that there was Mesopotamian imprint or influence upon Genesis. Violoncello10104 (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
the interpretation of "God says "Let us make man."
Ehm... I don't recall where that came from ... The article now says:
n Genesis 1:26, God says "Let us make man ..." This has given rise to several theories, of which the two most important are that "us" is majestic plural, or that it reflects a setting in a divine council with God enthroned as king and proposing the creation of mankind to the lesser divine beings. A traditional interpretation is that "us" refers to a plurality of persons in the Godhead, which reflects Trinitarianism. Some justify this by stating that the plural reveals a "duality within the Godhead" that recalls the "Spirit of God" mentioned in verse 2; "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters".
I propose that the following expansion be made to this section which at the moment only has one paragraph, and could do with further primary and secondary sources to give a fuller picture of hexameral literature on the Genesis creation narrative. Bouteneff 2008 has been cited as a reliable source since 2010, and no one has produced scholarly judgments to show that Bouteneff is unreliable, so I think it is unreasonable to say this source is so unreliable that all information from it should be immediately removed. In addition, nothing he is saying is controversial; he is just reporting the views of significant commentators in hexameral literature.
I'm not opposed to adding more sources to this, and I would appreciate constructive criticism or suggestions to improve this proposed expansion. However I do think it's highly unreasonable to simply delete this information, as has occurred twice now, rather than using the 'one source section' maintenance template which exists for precisely this kind of situation.
Theophilus of Antioch
The second-century Patriarch of Antioch, Theophilus, wrote a treatise attempting to convince his pagan acquaintance of the Christian faith by discrediting pagan classical literature and prophecy for its alleged contradictions and immorality, while upholding Scripture as possessing "antiquity", predating pagan philosophy. This treatise is known as the Letter to Autolycus and was cited as an authority by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Novatian, Methodius and Lactantius.
Theophilus attacks the polytheism and lack of divine providence of pagan myths, especially the account of Hesiod, lauding the Genesis creation account for its teaching of creation ex nihilo. His interpretation of the creation narrative is at times allegorical, for example, "through the resurrection is signified, for a proof of the future resurrection of all ". The waters are like the Law and the Prophets; the perfect sun is a type for God while the waxing and waning moon is a type for the human person. Despite his propensity for allegory, Theophilus does not mention Adam-Christ typology which is present in the works of his contemporaries such as Justin Martyr and Melito of Sardis, as well as in the New Testament, such that his interpretation resembles the Jewish exegesis of Philo of Alexandria and the midrash on Genesis.
Theophilus establishes an antithesis between pagan myths, which are regarded as deceitful and novel, and trustworthy ancient history as represented by the Genesis creation narrative. From his conviction of the reliability and antiquity of the prophetic writings, he meticulously calculates a chronology: from the Creation to the Flood was 2,242 years, from the Flood to Abraham, 1,036 years, from Isaac to Moses, 660 years and so on until the death of Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius in AD 180. He then evaluates the historicity of the Old Testament.
This message is not recent in origin, nor are our writings, as some suppose, mythical and false. They are actually more ancient and trustworthy. lived long after and introduced a multitude of gods. For this reason it is plain that all the rest were in error and that only the Christians have held the truth—we who are instructed by the Holy Spirit who spoke in the holy prophets and foretold everything.
Basil's homilies on the six days of creation (Hexaemeron) were appreciated widely; by Ambrose of Milan, Rufinus, Jerome and Socrates of Constantinople. Basil strongly separates the Genesis creation account from scientific accounts of creation, seeing instead a theological aim in Genesis to teach that "the world was not devised at random or to no purpose, but to contribute to some useful end and to the great advantage of all beings, if it is truly a training place for rational souls and a school for attaining the knowledge of God". Basil's homilies contain both a literalistic element seen in Theophilus, along with a fondness for practical working-class wisdom, as well as an Origenistic element in the Neoplatonic and allegorical concepts such as the notion of the pre-existence of Creation in the mind of God.
Basil conceives of Creation as existing conceptually in the mind of God before coming into physical existence by his will, comparing God to "the artist , even before the combination of the parts, knows the beauty of each and approves them individually, directing his judgment to the final aim", claiming this to be the meaning of Colossians 1:16 ("For by him were all things created"). However, Basil criticises the excessive allegorisation of the Marcionites, Manichaeans and Valentinian Gnostics, taking the terms "light", "darkness" and "deep" as literal appellations, and emphasising that evil has no origin of itself, but rather that it is attributable to the voluntary fall of man. He also interprets the days of creation as twenty-four-hour periods. Yet, he regards God's sayings "Let there be..." not as a literal spoken word, but as an allegorical "seed" of theology; "the divine will, joined with the first impulse of intelligence, is the Word of God." Basil, like Origen, says that "Theological teachings are scattered as mystical seeds throughout the historical account"; this explains his cautious embrace of allegory alongside the confession of the historicity of the account. On the allegorical interpretations of the "firmament", he says the following.
And if they tell you that the heavens mean contemplative powers, and the firmament active powers which produce good, we admire the theory as ingenious but we will not concede that it is altogether true. For in that case dew, the frost, cold and heat, which in Daniel are ordered to praise the Creator of all things, will be intelligent and invisible natures. But this is only a figure, accepted as such by enlightened minds , to complete the glory of the Creator.
Basil regards Creation as primarily doxological in glorifying the Creator, and secondarily as ethically instructive, for example in the perceived virtue of animals such as bees and turtles.
I have heard it said that the sea urchin, a little contemptible creature, often foretells calm and tempest to sailors. No astrologer, no Chaldaean, has ever communicated his secret to the urchin: it is the Lord of the sea and of the winds who has impressed on this little animal a manifest proof of his great wisdom. God has foreseen all, he has neglected nothing. His eye, which never sleeps, watches over all. He is present everywhere and gives to each being the means of preservation. If God has not left the sea urchin outside his providence, is he without care for you?
Basil's series of homilies on the Hexaemeron were unfinished. There are two homilies on the origin of humanity which present themselves as a continuation of Basil's work, although they differ significantly in style, leading some scholars to doubt their authenticity. In these homilies, the phrase "Let us make" in Genesis 1 is interpreted as referring to the Trinity, unlike Theophilus. The term "image" is associated with the rational soul, and "likeness" with the human vocation to become like God. These homilies also regard men and women as equal in that they both possess the image and likeness of God, "Nobody may ignorantly ascribe the name of human only to the man. The natures are alike of equal honor, the virtues are equal, the struggles equal, the judgment alike". The "making" of Adam in Genesis 1:27 is seen as referring to the soul while the "fashioning" in Genesis 2:7 refers to the deliberate and meticulous forming of Adam's body.
^ Bouteneff 2008, p. 135. Cite error: The named reference "FOOTNOTEBouteneff2008135" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
And I find it highly unreasonable that you have such a hidebound determination to add undue teleological content to this article with so little respect for establishing an actual consensus to do so when your additions are challenged, you having preferred to bludgeon the page. Looking over your comments on this page one detects a determined (glaring) creationist subtext. This content is more about Hexameral literature than it is about the Genesis creation narrative, so it has no place here. It might have a place in its own dedicated article. Carlstak (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Composition of the narrative
The article accepts and promotes a very old-fashioned version of the Documentary Hypothesis, ignoring other theories: the current thinking would be that the Torah was composed between 450-250 BC in a series of expansions, with the creation narrative dating from the end of that period. Achar Sva (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
faq page Frequently asked questions
.jpg)