Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:28, 15 February 2013

Template:Pbneutral

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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genesis creation narrative article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bible Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mythology Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

Index January 2005 – April 2007 April 2007 – October 2007 November 2007 – February 2009 February 2009 – January 2010 January 2010 – February 2010 February 2010 February 2010 February 2010 – March 2010 March 2010 – April 2010 April 2010 – May 2010 May 2010 – June 2010 June 2010 – December 2010 Dec 2010 – Dec 2011 January 2012 – February 2012 February 2012 – March 2012 March 2012 March 2012 – September 2012 September 2012 September 2012 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. Restarting a debate that has already been settled constitutes disruptive editing, tendentious editing, and "asking the other parent", unless consensus changes.

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.

The renaming dispute

To summarize, a suggestion was made to move Genesis creation narrative to Genesis creation myth. There are also alternative suggestions to move it to Creation (bible) or Creation (Book of Genesis).

• The reasons for this revolve around 'consistency' and non-preferential treatment in naming of Christian articles.
• The reasons against revolve around scepticism that this is really motivated for reasons of neutrality and concern that 'myth' implies 'false story'.

I personally think that Creation (Book of Genesis) is a good compromise and I've said as much, but that's part of the problem. This is a charged issue that very quickly attracts walls of text and little reading. If people only only talk at' each other and not with each other, this issue will never resolve (and will likely continue to recurring). Is seeking mediation a good idea?
—Sowlos (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Genesis creation story has also been suggested several times as a compromise, and as the one most supported by reliable sources. I'm only adding it here so the entire scope of proposed possible titles can be seen in one place. First Light (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The point that is raised repeatedly, however, is that it serves the reader better to have the word "Creation" first, since it's more likely the first search term item. I would continue to hope that we can defuse some of this poisonous debate by getting words like "myth," "story," and "narrative" out of the title altogether, since I find it exceedingly unlikely that readers will be typing in such phrases. I would go for any title that begins with the word "Creation" and brackets a designation of the source that points the reader clearly enough in the right direction, whether that's (Biblical), (Genesis), (Book of Genesis), or what have you. It's really about finding the most accessible (aka most common) title. The only purpose of article titles is to alert readers as clearly and succinctly as possible that they're on the right page. If I were a certain kind of Christian believer, and I saw the phrase "Genesis creation myth" or even "Genesis creation narrative," I'd think it wasn't the article I was looking for: but I would recognize Creation in Genesis, or Creation (Biblical), or some such, and so would any atheist. Neither would have any grounds to object to a lack of neutrality. Article titles are supposed to be recognizable and natural. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I think one of the problems here has been the process, which has pitted one name against the other, mano e mano (reflecting the attitudes of the editors). I could support either Genesis creation story or Creation in Genesis (as neutral and natural). But neither has been put to a mano e mano !vote against the others. Maybe we need a poll, listing all possible choices—I know, we don't ordinarily do polls—but at least that could winnow the choices down. First Light (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• This ngram suggests that "Creation in Genesis" is the common name by a wide margin. Kauffner (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe we could drop the whole matter and move on... StAnselm (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

My point is that people wont drop this matter. This isn't the first time this has happened and I can't see it being the last if we don't find an equitable solution. This is why I want to know if there are enough disputants willing to seek mediation.
—Sowlos (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. We already have an active move proposal (two, even). I don't think this new discussion thread helps the issue in the least. The proposals above are likely to close "no consensus" status quo ante bellum, and that will probably be true of every new proposal. Which is fine by me, because there's nothing really wrong with the present title. -- 202.124.73.26 (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking if we should seek mediation on the issue, not bring my opinions to a vote.
—Sowlos (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought mediation was for content disputes. And I thought it was voluntary. Do you really expect everybody who participated in the move discussion to volunteer? There's nothing wrong with the present title, and no convincing policy arguments have been presented for changing it. -- 202.124.74.31 (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding mediation, I agree with 202.* and StAnselm. This is just a requested page move. Many such page moves are closed as 'no consensus' without mediation, arbitration, etc., and with a small group of editors left feeling sad (I've seen far worse). Let an admin close it and let us all move on to more productive activities. Enough is enough. First Light (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought mediation was for content disputes.The guidelines are a unclear about that, but I think I remember seeing other naming disputes receive mediation. Naming and content disputes can both devolve into the same thing, edit war.
Do you really expect everybody...to volunteer?Well, depends on how many people are actively disputing versus how many just passed by and left.
There's nothing wrong with the present title...Obliviously, a lot of people disagree. Well, that may not matter if the dispute burns out.
—Sowlos (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've seen far worseLol; so have I.
—Sowlos (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't going to be "just dropped", a gang of thugs can't just muddy the water of every one of these discussions and affect a "no consensus" and the impartial outside closer definitely didn't agree that the current naming is neutral. I second WP:RFM or even just skip to WP:RFAR since this might actually require some tweaking of established policy... — raekyt 14:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I would support taking action against editors that throw around terms like "gang of thugs." -- 202.124.75.106 (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

We could also vote for a moratorium on requested moves for a period of 1 year. Then editors could do more useful things with their time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support one year moratorium on requested moves.--agr (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. WP:CCC, and right now we have "no consensus".   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Creationism and the creation narrative

This article is linked via a template to the series of articles dealing with creationism. Yet it spends almost no time discussing creationism (about a paragraph in the Genre section). I'm wondering if there should be a new section, Creationism and Genesis 1-2? PiCo (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move: → Creation in Genesis

It has been proposed in this section that Genesis creation narrative be renamed and moved to Creation in Genesis. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Genesis creation narrative → Creation in Genesis – Bible references generally give this subject as simply "creation", see Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary (p. 316), Browning's A Dictionary of the Bible, and Dictionary of the Old Testament (p. 156). "Creation in Genesis" has been suggested by several editors, notably Moe Epsilon, closer of the previous RM. Of the various suggestions that have been put on the table, I consider this one to be closest to the style of the reference works given above. I graphed the various possibilities on this ngram. Not only is "creation in Genesis" easily the most common form, but the second most common form is "creation story in Genesis", which I consider to be a variant. "Myth," "account", and "narrative" all lag far behind. The subject is of course a myth, an account, and a narrative, but it is not necessary to put any of these words in the title. Kauffner (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose I'd like to stay with the current title. It's fairly stable (absolute stability seems impossible to achieve), and I think the idea is that it's in keeping with the larger family of creation-myth articles on Misplaced Pages - we have Chinese creation myth and no doubt a Hindu creation myth, so (the argument goes), why should the biblical one be different? So I'd say leave it.PiCo (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Ok, I've figured out the ngram thing :). I don't think this is a very useful way toget a lead - it surveys absolutely everything, when what's needed it is to survey scholarly works specifically targeted on biblical creation (especially Genesis 1-2). When you get down to that level you get a different picture - Blenkinsopp, for example, has a whole section discussing the question of myth versus history and explains very objectively why scholars refer to the Genesis story as myth (see page 12). Even the Zondervan article on creation refers to it as a narrative (just "creation" in the header, but "narrative" in the text of the article.)PiCo (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is what name should be used to refer to this subject, which is not quite the same thing. Blenkinsopp uses "creation in Genesis", but never "Genesis creation narrative" or "Genesis creation myth". Kauffner (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

In the book - a commentary on Genesis 1-11 - Blenkinsopp calls it a "myth", and explains why (because it's a technical term that locates Genesis 1-11 in a genre, basically - and he doesn't call it "creation in Genesis", by the way, as the full phrase is that this is "the priest-author's account" of creation ). As for us, we can't call it just "creation" because that leads to a disambiguation page; so what can we call it? Creation in Genesis would work, but given that we have a whole series of articles about world creation myths, and this is the creation myth of a group of early Jews c.500 BC, Genesis creation myth or narrative seems more appropriate. As I said above, even the Zondervan article calls it a narrative, so why shouldn't we? PiCo (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's narrative, story, myth, account -- all those things. But it is not necessary to put any of those words in the title. I think I have already explained the logic behind the proposed title: I am trying to make our title correspond as closely as possible to the common name, the title used by the reference works listed in the nom, namely "creation." I limited myself to the titles that have already been proposed to avoid excessive novelty. Kauffner (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should move that para to the top - an explanation of what your reasoning has been. PiCo (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Extremely Strongly Against This seems yet another step in the appalling, non-encyclopaedic exercise of treating Christianity differently from all the other belief systems with creation myths. It's bad enough that the conservative middle American Christians have imposed their world view on the article to change myth to narrative. Christians, you're not special to Misplaced Pages! (Or you bloody well shouldn't be!) HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you come to a page called "Genesis creation narrative" and not only trash Christians, but Americans too? You're either not smart or you're looking for a fight. --Oh and prejudiced too.

As for a vote, I wouldn't be against the change, but I'm not really for it either. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Not prejudiced at all. That would mean PRE-judging. I don't have to do that. As I have pointed out, some of the conservative Christians have already pushed their POV onto this topic. It would be very difficult to argue otherwise. I want to see that POV pushing go no further. HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You have your opinions (and you can thank Americans for you having the freedom to be able to voice your opinion), but don't try to stifle others' opinions because you think that theirs don't matter as much as yours. That's why we have consensus. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have NOT tried to stifle opinion, nor have I criticised ALL Americans. Making stupid allegations like that only demonstrates your poor thinking on this matter, or poor reading of what I wrote. Anyway, a quick look at your user page tells me that you're not likely to have an objective view on the question of why Christianity should be treated differently from other belief structures. HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Americans invented freedom for Australia? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the proposed title is slightly vaguer than the existing one. "Genesis creation narrative" clearly refers to the first two chapters - "Creation in Genesis" makes me think the article would be a discussion of the theme of creation in the entire book of Genesis. For example, this article suggests that Genesis 8:20-22 has the theme "God Continues to Create". StAnselm (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. That article is pointing to the "de-creation/re-creation" theme of the Flood story - God destroys the Earth by opening it to the waters of chaos, saves Noah and the animals in an Earth-shaped boat, and then restores the Earth in the same order as he created it. It's not discussed at the moment. PiCo (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I note that the linked article doesn't actually use the phrase this way. Just because a hyper-literal interpretation is possible doesn't mean it is common or likely. Kauffner (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you replying to me or to StAnselm? (Not sure what you mean by using a phrase "in this way" - what phrase, way?) PiCo (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: None of the multi-various names this article has had (not to mention the dozens more editors have suggested and failed to gain traction with) have been a satisfactory resolution as far as I'm concerned. But having tried to go back and trace the path this article has taken to arrive at this particular title, I came to appreciate how shamefully, freakishly much volunteer time has been sucked away in pedantics, "fairness", culture and dictionary wars over what the title should be here. I'm disinclined to entertain any changes that are (so absolutely sure to) further article disruptions by changing the article's name until a more decisive, objective AND less ambiguous means is recognized and accepted as useful for determining WP:COMMONNAME. Is ngram such a means? I don't think so, since I've "what-iffed" various alternatives that bested the chart lines of this one. I'm also unconvinced by the volatility over time, especially given that wp's creative commons license has resulted in an icky degree of wp glop showing up in google books. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose move per PiCo; let's try to stay consistent, and on the right side of NPOV. KillerChihuahua 02:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• No need to change the article name, status quo seems apt and is difficult to fault. (Sir Harry Nessbit 03:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC))
• Oppose. The current title is highly problematic and reeks of ethnocentric chauvinism, but the proposal doesn't fix that at all. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment* Forgive me but I don't fully understand the issue here. IMO the current title does not offer a POV one way or another in that it does not validate or repudiate the topic discussed. The article is easy to find and, without a real alternative, I do not feel there is justification for another name change. (Sir Harry Nessbit 03:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Nessbit (talk • contribs)

• In that case, perhaps you could read the nomination? Kauffner (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. For the first time since I have been watching this page, the proposed title seems to me to be completely neutral, simple and appropriate. Abtract (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I don't see anything wrong with the proposed title, there are far too many debates here about changing the name. Just keep it the same for several years. It was hard enough to compromise on the current title. I suspect having the proposed name would stimulate even more rename requests. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Entirely neutral and appropriate. A narrative suggests a retelling of something that happened. There's not a shred of evidence that Genesis is an historical account of anything.Theroadislong (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - The story or narrative or myth or whatever you want to call it is in fact just that, a story. I cannot see any good reason to remove that information from the title. Also, honestly, "Creation in Genesis" is more than a bit vague itself. While I can and do see some basis for trying to resolve the neverending myth vs. narrative vs. whatever debate, I cannot see how this change is likely to do that, and neither can I see any good reason to seemingly broaden the potential scope of the article with an even less specific title. John Carter (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. While the current title is blatantly religiocentric, "Creation in Genesis" – which smacks of Creationism – is worse. "Creation in religion" redirects to Creation myth and "Creation in schools" redirects to Creation and evolution in public education. Keahapana (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as a step in the wrong direction. The correct title is Genesis creation myth. The only problem with that title is that the term "myth" was originally created by Christians as a way to label stories like those in the Bible, only that they considered them wrong because they were the foundational stories of other religions. So the word had negative connotations. But nowadays "myth" is a neutral technical term that Christian theologists have no trouble applying to stories in the Bible as well. There is a competing meaning, that of a false story, but that is both obviously applicable in this case and obviously not connoted by the technical term "creation myth".
  And the argument for the proposed title makes no sense. "Creation in Genesis" is not a title. It just gets a lot of Google hits because it appears in descriptive phrases such as "man's creation in Genesis", "stories of human creation in Genesis" etc. In the vast majority of cases, the occurrences are of the form "X creation in Genesis", where "creation" binds more strongly with "X" than with "in Genesis". Hans Adler 00:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • That certainly isn't the argument I gave. The entry heading used by the reference works listed above is simply "creation." So "creation in Genesis" is the common name, plus a minimum of disambiguation. Kauffner (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, sorry for having misunderstood that part. But I still don't agree with "Creation in Genesis". To me that's an OR name rather than a descriptive title. Proper disambiguation would be "Creation (Genesis)", but "(Genesis)" is not a particularly elegant disambiguator. I am also not convinced that "Creation" is used as a name in those reference works. After all, they have problems similar to ours and will in some cases use descriptive titles. I think most of these articles are articles about the general concept of creation, as it occurs in the Bible. The Bible hardly ever discusses the topic except in the two creation myths, which appear close to each other and got a joint end redaction. So an article on the general topic naturally focuses on this contiguous chunk of text. That doesn't make the name of the general concept the name of that chunk of text. Hans Adler 14:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I, too, would like to stay with the current title. It represents blood, sweat, and tears from not that long ago. It represents a compromise that most could live with. "Genesis creation narrative" allows it to be in the first two chapters, while "Creation in Genesis" is more likely to imply the entire book of Genesis. The search algorithm has been improved and will find it either way. Neither is religiocentric. "Myth" is not a neutral term for the average person. We're not writing for theologians. Literally every Google-type search for "myth" brings up alleged falsehoods. Afaprof01 (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If "myth" is not a neutral term, why do we still use it to describe creation beliefs of faiths other than Christianity? I still think it's very unhealthy for Misplaced Pages that the Creationist Christians here sought and gained special treatment over other religions, and truth. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That is not an issue here, it is an issue for other articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Please see WP:CHRISTIANPOV for an summary of how Christianity gets preferential treatment on wikipedia. The title of this page is only one of many examples. A neutral title would be "Genesis creation myth". Pass a Method talk 02:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that systemic pro-fundamentalist Christian bias is a problem for Misplaced Pages, and especially for articles like this. Inevitably there will be a disproportionately high number of hard core Christians watching and editing articles like this, and we're going through the farcical exercise of a "survey". I wish they could apply some real Christian ethical principles to their behaviour here, rather than hoping to please their god by pushing their POV onto this article. I don't think Jesus did that sort of thing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yepp, also known as crypto-racist. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Our current concession to Christians desiring religious favoritism in Misplaced Pages is the camel's nose in the tent. "Creation in Genesis" seems like sleeping with the camel. Our rejected past title "Creation according to Genesis" came off more unbiased. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposal takes the title even farther away from what it ought to be (Genesis creation myth, for uniformity with other creation myth articles). —Psychonaut (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title in neutral and descriptive. Too much effort has been wasted on endless debates about this article. --agr (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• oppose Pass a Method talk 09:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Genesis creation myth is the appropriate title. This is what I posted last year regarding google hits: While I appreciate the arguments at previous discussions on the topic, I've never found our reasoning for the current title too compelling. The strongest argument for it has always been COMMONNAME, but then we have often used unfiltered search results which turned out to be mostly similar. I mean, the difference between 120 hits and 230 hits on a search engine is not worth discussing, IMO. If the whole academic community referred to this as "the GC narrative", my opinion would be different, but the fact is that this is referred to as a myth very commonly in secular sources, and commonly still even in religious ones. So for me, COMMONNAME doesn't really resonate as a strong reason to break convention for just one religion. It seems to me we can source "the GC myth" very well, and it fits with all our other articles on the topic, which means it won't create surprise for our readers searching for the topic, or finding it listed among a multitude of other "... myth" articles. Consistency and sourcing are important to me, not so much splitting hairs over similar and unexamined google hits.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support As the proposer points out, "Creation in Genesis" is by far the most widely used phrasing. Reliable sources also show it to be far more widely used than the almost artificially constructed (as it is used by so few reliable sources) "Genesis creation narrative." Google Scholar shows an underwhelming 135 results for "Genesis creation myth", an equally underwhelming 235 results for "Genesis creation narrative", and the expected 3,900 results for "Creation in Genesis" (expected by editors who depend on reliable sources rather than bias and bigotry, and no, I don't always take the "Christian" side of these arguments, as you can see from some of my contributions). First Light (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not the most widely used phrase. As I pointed out below, the results for "Creation in Genesis" are not all names; many are sentence fragments, or intended to be descriptive. For instance, "...describing the world's creation in Genesis." Conversely, Genesis "creation myth" returns more than 5,000 results, indicating 'creation myth' is a common label used in writing on the topic. This is further backed up by the quality sources we've actually examined, where the phrase is prevalent.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I find nothing in WP:Article title to indicate that sentence fragments are not considered, and only titles are considered. In fact, the five criteria at the guideline are: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. The use of the exact phrase, in context, to describe the subject in a sentence is exactly what at least four of those criteria are describing. First Light (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Please read through the search results instead of just mindlessly posting the numbers. It seems that a large proportion your "creation in Genesis" results aren't using the words as a single noun phrase which denotes the concept we are talking about here. The words are often used in reference to some more specific act or aspect of creation (e.g., "the account of Eve's creation in Genesis", "the order of creation in Genesis", "stories of his creation in Genesis 2"), or don't even form a cohesive unit as the words cross phrase or sentence boundaries (e.g., "…mode of creation. In Genesis 1…"). Sometimes the phrase is used in the sense we're discussing here, but only because it appears in the title of a cited work; one cannot therefore infer that the author is endorsing that usage. In still other cases, the words are used as part of a longer phrase which is much closer to what's being proposed below ("myth of creation in Genesis"). —Psychonaut (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I did scan through the search results, rather than mindlessly pretending that such an overwhelming ratio (nearly 30:1!!!) is because 3,800 of those results are because of such anomalies. The numbers are so overwhelming in this case that the burden of proof is on you, not me, to show that there is some bizarre anomaly like an academic who changed his name to "Creation in Genesis". In fact, of the first page of Google Scholar results for "Creation in Genesis," the only five where I could read the text all used the term "creation in Genesis" in exactly the manner that is supported by the article title criteria: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. First Light (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. The issue is article scope. As it stands, the article offers analysis of the account of creation in Genesis that draws on several strands of scholarship including narratology, comparative mythology, and history of religion. It is not confined to analyzing the account only as either a narrative or a myth (though the study of myth as an academic discipline is inherently multidisciplinary). The account of Creation in Genesis is complex in the traditions and sources it drew on, and IMHO it would be wrongheaded from a scholarly perspective to attempt to fragment those. My concern, however, is that if you change the title to "Creation in Genesis" (which is what I prefer at the moment), you'd lose the careful distinction between analyzing how the account of Creation in Genesis has meaning (mythological/narratological analysis), to what it means to believers—that is, the title "Creation in Genesis" would make it less clear that the article isn't about creationism as a belief system. Attempting to argue this question based on search engines seems futile and beside the point. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

New proposal

Genesis creation narrative → Genesis creation myth. I propose this title in response to all the feedback above. Pass a Method talk 17:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 17#Requested_move. StAnselm (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

  This proposal would fall in line with the precedent set in the naming of similar creation myth articles. I see the current title as giving preferential treatment to Christians which is a form of WP:CHRISTIANPOV; something i think damages any notion of neutrality on wikipedia. Pass a Method talk 22:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

But what has changed since last year's discussion? StAnselm (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:RNPOV and WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Pass a Method talk 09:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

See them for what, exactly? A direct question has been asked, and the following statement does not seem in any way to even remotely address the question raised. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support, again. creation myth is accurate and more scholarly. Article titles should be consistent. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support — raekyt 04:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Change the rest of the articles too then (however, that should not be discussed here), your argument is invalid. House1090 (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I dont see the point of this as it has already been resolved in the past. House1090 (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Clearly not. Consensus can change. No past decision is resolute. — raekyt 04:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Nothing has changed since the previous decision for "Narrative." With due respect, if you want to change the other "Myth" articles, it's your prerogative to initiate proposals. I regret your apparent prejudice toward Christians with your repeated emphases on alleging preferential treatment to Christians. And we're not talking just about Christians here. The Old Testament is respected and used by the three major Abrahamic religions: Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam. Many sources say the Bible is the most-read book in the World, so we're talking about a lot of people when we include Jews and Muslims who respect the Book of Genesis as God-inspired. How do you think the word "myth" will be translated into the multiple translations of Misplaced Pages? What will the word become in Farsi?

Common sense says that the nearly universal connotation of "Myth" is fiction, and implying fiction is not NPOV. I challenge you to find even one (1) example from anything ordinary people read that uses "Myth" in the highly technical sense that you want. No academic or theologian will be offended by the word "narrative", but since Misplaced Pages cannot be used as an authoritative source in any academic setting, we really should be trying to reach the everyday average person.

Re: your complaint about the implications of the word "narrative": I've never heard the Encyclopedia Britannica accused of being slanted toward Christianity. They use the words "narrative" and "history" in their article on Genesis and I quote: " 'In the beginning….' Genesis narrates the primeval history of the world." (emphases added). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afaprof01 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 5 February 2013‎

I hereby accuse Encyclopedia Britannica of being slanted towards Christianity. And now that we've taken care of that… —Psychonaut (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Afaprof01: Also quoted from Encyclopedia Britannica: "ll theology and speculation concerning creation in the Christian community are based on the myth of creation in the biblical book of Genesis". While your quote describes some of what is narrated in the Book of Genesis, this article is specifically about the creation myth contained within that book. Genesis creation myth is the natural title for this article. Regards, Ben (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There are no multiple translations of Misplaced Pages, there are 200+ different Wikipedias, and they don't all share the same policies and guidelines either. This argument is irrelevant. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In response to Afaprof01, I would only note that so far as I can tell the better and most recent dictionaries of the English language to which I have access all list the academic meaning of "Myth" before the allegedly "popular" definition of myth, which gives the impression that, in fact, the "academic" definition is in fact the way in which the word is most commonly used. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support for neutrality and consistency with other creation myths. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support for consistency with WP:RNPOV, our other creation myth articles, and the wider academic press. Cheers, Ben (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC).
• Support I'm adding my vote because i did not indicate whether i support the move in my above proposal or why. My reasons for support are found in the wikilinks WP:CHRISTIANPOV, WP:RNPOV and WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. In other words, there are 4200 religions in the world; and wikipedia should not be in the business of promoting one over the other. We have Conservapedia for that. There is already a Christian bias accross several religion-related articles as mentioned in WP:CHRISTIANPOV, but i think expanding such bias to creation myth titles is a step too far.

Furthermore, this proposal would fall in line with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA since "genesis creation myth" gets 124,000 his on google books, far more than any of the alternatives. Folk religions make up quite a large proportion of the world populaton with Chinese folk religion at 394 million adherents, primal indigenous at 300 million and African traditional at 100 million with a total of 794 million people. If Christianity gets privileged treatment, we would have to set a precedent and rename all the indigenous/folk religions too since as a whole they are not fringe. Pass a Method talk 09:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to pander to fringe beliefs, even those which were once common in Western society and are still common in parts of the US. Creation myth is a technical term in all the relevant academic fields including Christian theology, and the hypersensitivity of some fringers w.r.t. to that term is totally out of place. Hans Adler 10:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Narrative" is neutral and descriptive -- a good choice of word. Jheald (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support This is the grown-up Misplaced Pages, not Simiple Misplaced Pages. Ben is correct, "for consistency with WP:RNPOV, our other creation myth articles, and the wider academic press." It also isn't as though you won't find it used by theologians of various faiths as Hans points out. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose as POV title. This was rejected only recently. The problem is that this is not an article for academics and so should not have an academic title. It has to be a neutral point of view title. "Myth" is not neutral point of view in common English, but implies a disbelief. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you read WP:CHRISTIANPOV ? Pass a Method talk 12:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, Pass a Method, WP:CHRISTIANPOV is an essay that you wrote. It is not, itself, a policy, the way WP:RNPOV is. And in any event, the problem with WP:CHRISTIANPOV is that followed to the end, it ends up violating WP:IMPARTIAL. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support It's the actual term for such things. Adam Cuerden 11:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is far more common to describe this subject as a "story" than as a "myth," as you can see in this ngram. "Story", "narrative", and "account" all mean about the same thing. But the word "myth" makes a judgement, and the vast majority of writers on this subject do not use terminology that makes this judgement. I note that it is Islamic creation belief, not Islamic creation myth. Kauffner (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Is the corpus representative of English usage generally? And if so, are the differences shown in the graph statistically significant? —Psychonaut (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - there is no compelling reason to change the title of this article yet again. The words used are common in both scholarly literature and in everyday use. (Perhaps not the most common - plain old "Creation in Genesis" or "Genesis creation story" would probably be much more common.) The words are sufficiently clear to help readers find the correct article, they adequately disambiguate the subject, and they are neutral. The only reason to change is to push a POV. Ἀλήθεια 13:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. My opinion on this hasn't changed since last year, and I don't think the facts have either. RNPOV specifies that we should favor academic terms if they are used commonly, using "myth" as the example. To use "narrative" instead in order to avoid offense is contrary to policy and giving deference to the 'offense' of one religious group over all others. Myth means something in academia, and it is applicable to this topic, as our sources indicate.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Myth as an academic term is not used the same way as myth in ordinary, formal English. In ordinary English it explicitly carries a connotation of fiction. Do the following, really fascinating exercise, based on the website of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Compare the main dictionary's definition here with their Learner's Dictionary definition here and their student dictionary definition here. You will see that for anyone whose English is not at a fairly high level, the definitions given have distinct overtones of fiction. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you read WP:RNPOV? It is a part of NPOV which explicitly says we cannot avoid academic terms because their informal meaning may cause offense, and it uses the word myth as an example.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I take your point, but WP:RNPOV does not require that we use them if another term will do as well. IMHO, if another term would do as well without invoking unnecessary connotations, why would we not want to use it? In fact, based on WP:IMPARTIAL, it is probably to be preferred.

BTW: the very first sentence of the article calls this a creation myth. So the point is made, and fairly strongly, in my view. Why is changing the title in addition important? StevenJ81 (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Because a creation narrative isn't a thing. A creation myth is. They don't substitute for each other, so narrative isn't just another acceptable term we could equally use. RNPOV says that we should not avoid terms like myth due to their informal meaning, so the argument that "its informal meaning might be confused, so we should use this other term" cannot be compelling. We have to consider the other term on its merits, and I think the merits point to "creation myth", given that it is used widely in the academic literature, and that it has a specific and useful meaning which encapsulates the topic well.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not a piece of academic writing. And we are not talking about comparing academic and informal uses of this word; we are talking about uses of the word that are not academic, but are perfectly acceptable formal English. In any event, I appreciate WP:RNPOV, but I would encourage you to look again at WP:IMPARTIAL. I think myth possibly violates that, in any event. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, for the record, please see my additional comment here. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Read the beginning of creation myth. The use you are referring to is, indeed, the informal sense of the word "mythology", and that is the sense that RNPOV warns against (by using the example of mythology, in fact). We're not engaging in a heated debate, or taking any sides; no one in academia disputes that this is a creation myth in the formal sense. We're simply and dispassionately reporting that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• RNPOV 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." If anything, that's a reason not to put "myth" in the title. Kauffner (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh? We're using it in its formal sense.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

How does the reader know that? In a title, there is no context to establish this. If Islam has a "creation belief", but Genesis is only a "creation myth," it's like we are ranking the religions. Kauffner (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The context is in the lead. That's why we have articles and not just titles. We don't have any article titled "Islamic creation belief". Instead, we have an article on Islamic mythology which includes a section on their religious beliefs. See the word "mythology" in the title? Why is it so important we remove it here but not there?   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Oic. You have the read the article to find what the title means. I don't think that's the way it is supposed to work. There is a Christian mythology article too, you know. Kauffner (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Those darned inconvenient Reliable Sources (Google Scholar in this case) show an underwhelming 135 results for "Genesis creation myth", 235 results for "Genesis creation narrative", and 3,900 results for "Creation in Genesis". First Light (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The results for "Creation in Genesis" are not all names. Many are sentence fragments or descriptive, such as "...documenting the world's creation in Genesis". The difference between 135 and 235 results is underwhelming, and not a compelling reason for change. This is particularly true since this is a descriptive title, and Genesis "creation narrative" return 2,750 results while Genesis "creation myth" return 5,280, indicating that "creation myth" is a more common descriptor on the topic.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The fallacy of your argument has already been pointed out. Your example would include hundreds of references that make absolutely no connection between the terms "creation narrative"/"creation myth" and the word "genesis". Most notably, it would include many hits for sources that don't even discuss the topic at hand, which is the creation narrative found in the biblical text of the book of Genesis. By the way, there are other narratives, and they are frequently referred to as "narratives" or "stories". While we don't yet have wikipedia articles for these topics, one could compare for instance the frequency of terms like "exodus narrative" "plagues narrative" or "wilderness narrative". Only rarely will you find "wilderness myth", almost never "plagues myth", and most hits for "exodus myth" are specifically dealing with issues of historicity. However this article should be agnostic toward the historicity of the narrative. It should simply present it as it is - a biblical text. The word "narrative" is the best and most neutral way to describe the nature of the text. Its status as mythological, historical, scientific, or otherwise should be discussed in the body of the article, not the title. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I was responding to the suggestion that search results for "creation in genesis" were significant. They are not. Further, our quality sources commonly use the term "creation myth" with respect to the topic. In a formal sense, "creation myth" is entirely neutral. Only in the informal sense would it pose a neutrality concern, and per WP:RNPOV, we are prohibited from avoiding such terms because of possible confusion with their informal meaning.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

We do not avoid it. We call great attention to it. We mention it and link to it in the very first sentence. It is entirely unnecessary to use it in the title, much as it would be to rename The Hound of the Baskervilles to The Hound of the Baskervilles crime novel. Unfortunately for us, it was not popular to slap titles on ancient Hebrew texts (much less so chapter and paragraph headings, which is more akin to what these individual narratives are) until very recently. As I have argued before, the title of this article should stick to what is minimally needed to unambiguously identify the topic. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You are, indeed, suggesting we avoid it in the title due to its informal meaning. That's prohibited by RNPOV.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting that we avoid that specific word. I am suggesting we avoid introducing any additional words that are unnecessary, that don't help readers navigate to the correct article, or that introduce unnecessary bias. While it may be totally accurate to say "Creation story as found in the biblical book of Genesis", that's way too long. Calling it "Genesis 1:1 - 2:3" is also a very helpful description, and covers the scope of the article nicely, but readers aren't going to necessarily most intuitively look for that. It used to be "Creation according to Genesis" (for several years), which I thought was a very apt title. According to current consensus on wikipedia, the term "narrative" includes "any account that presents connected events" ... whether non-fiction, fiction, or fictionalized accounts of historical events (e.g., myths). That word leaves the most room for the article to address the topic in the most neutral way. However, just to address the specific argument that you are making, which is that somehow RNPOV demands the use of the term "myth" in the title, that's complete baloney. In fact, it would be easier to argue that WP:LABEL demands we do avoid the term "myth" until we "...establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term" (such as what we do in the first line of the article, by linking to the term). Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose once again. I would like to go on record now as also opposing the following suggestions: "Scientific explanation of origins in Genesis"; "Purely symbolic discussion of origins in Genesis"; "Silly fairy tale about origins in Genesis". Can we please just call it what it is and move on now? Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support, again. Myth is accurate and does not, in its scholarly use, carry any presumption of truth or falsehood. Giving special treatment to any one religion's beliefs is counter to NPOV. KillerChihuahua 18:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment (since I voted already): I would have been given Weak Support to the earlier proposals of Creation in Genesis, Creation (Book of Genesis) and related. What I oppose is the terminology myth, for the reasons I stated above. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. A lot of people have been appealing to WP:RNPOV, which says "Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts..." I would just like to point out that narrative is one of these words. StAnselm (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The word "myth" is unnecessarily; it implies fiction. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you trying to say talking snakes are reality? Pass a Method talk 23:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This article isn't about whether or not snakes talk. In fact, the narrative in question does not include a snake. (The following chapter has a serpent, which is probably what you are referring to.) Are you trying to suggest that by opposing the inclusion of the word "myth" in the title of this article, you must affirm belief in the current existence of talking snakes? There are clearly supernatural circumstances involved in this narrative. That's why it starts "In the beginning God..." It assumes supernatural invention. I can't expect for you to accept that, but that doesn't make it right to pass judgment on that particular belief. HokieRNB 01:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Either way, if it has so many supernatural and impossible occurances, one should not be surprised when others see it as fiction. Pass a Method talk 08:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Jfdwolff's statement that the word "myth" implies fiction. As I have noted above, the definition of "myth" which specifically implies "fiction" is in fact one of the lower, and thus less-frequently-used, meanings of the term myth according to several dictionaries. On that basis, I believe his statement might also carry comparatively little weight. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for all of the reasons why it came to be the present title. This shouldn't even be discussed now, since it was already done before. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment all the opposes have failed to address the fact that the standard term for a creation tradtion is "creation myth". Why should it be different for this article? Pass a Method talk 16:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not even remotely true. It has been addressed numerous times and in numerous ways. There is no compelling reason to make this article fit a mold that was created later. While it may be true that there are some other articles titled "creation myth", not all articles dealing with similar topics are titled this way. Some article titles use a specific name for the story, such as "Cheonjiwang Bonpuli" or "Enûma Eliš" while other article titles use the name for a central character, such as "Väinämöinen" or "Mbombo". The pattern is quite flexible based on the type of story and the prevalence of other appropriate titles. The so-called standard may in fact be more influenced by wikipedia than many care to admit. One of the primary differences that has been raised time and time again is that the Hebrew text does differ from other traditions of origins in very significant ways. As has been previously pointed out, the text in question is a carefully constructed narrative, with a canonical basis having very few and very minor textual variants. For as far back in history as we are able to tell, it has been passed down not orally but in complete and final written form. It is not merely Christians or Jews who are trying to distinguish this text, the text distinguishes itself. HokieRNB 17:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose by the way, just in case someone is counting votes instead of taking into account the arguments on their own merits. HokieRNB 17:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, let me take a brief try at this. In that context, please remember that not all of us who oppose "myth" are Fundamentalists (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or any other way), and not all of us who accept authority of the Bible are literalists in this matter.

I'd start out by noting, first, that WP:RNPOV is a guidance within WP:NPOV, not a separate policy itself. And while RNPOV certainly allows for the use of "myth", it equally does not require it, at least by my reading. Use of formal terminology is encouraged expressly to avoid causing unnecessary offense. Here, it appears to be causing offense. And while the majority of academic "reliable and notable sources" seem to like "creation myth", there are other types of "reliable and notable sources" that don't. It's hard for me to see a clear and convincing WP:COMMONNAME on that basis.

Second, it appears to me that WP:TITLE is getting short shrift in this discussion, in favor of RNPOV. That's not quite right either. Recall that where a true common name exists, a title is permitted to contain outright biased language (e.g., Boston Strangler). It is absolutely true that WP:TITLE likes consistency in titles as a general rule. But if you look at the very first section of WP:TITLE, which is WP:CRITERIA, you also get the following guidance:

The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists.

And under WP:COMMONNAME, two points:

Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic. The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms .

And finally, back to WP:CRITERIA, after it describes the five characteristics of a good article title (recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, consistency), it notes:

However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus.

It feels to me that those favoring a change here are placing consistency above all goals. For a general audience, the current title is at least as good on recognizability. And it is better on naturalness, because much of the general audience finds it very unnatural to refer to Biblical sources as "myth", because of the fiction connotation. (These are pretty much equally concise. And "precision" here does not mean accuracy of description, it means that it will get readers to the right place. Again, both are pretty much equal for that.)

Third and last, the article will de facto have all of these titles anyway, because they will all redirect here. So why all the fuss, anyway?

What we have here is an incredibly controversial move proposal, and to my eye absolutely no apparent consensus. The only naming criterion on which a title containing "creation myth" wins outright is "consistency". And it does win there. But it does not win outright on any other criterion, and it creates huge controversy. So I do not see it as the appropriate title. I commend the essay WP:NOWIN here. Time to move on. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a really brief note... NPOV should always trump MOS. NPOV is a pillar, where TITLE is "just" a policy, and if there were a conflict between the two, there should be a clear victor. I don't actually think there is a conflict between the two, since I don't think "Genesis creation narrative" is the established common name in academic writing, I think it's less precise, equally (or less) concise, and the opposite of consistent. But point being, if I'm wrong and TITLE were to support the current version (despite NPOV), then NPOV isn't the policy to ignore.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that NPOV trumps MOS. But this is assuming that "narrative" is somehow POV. Taken by itself, it isn't - it's a perfectly neutral scholarly word. Just like "myth" is a perfectly neutral scholarly word. So the only argument in favour of the proposed move is the argument of consistency, which means we're back to MOS issues. StAnselm (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, if the term "creation myth" were the appropriate term to use, but we settled for "creation narrative" instead to avoid confusion between 'myth' and 'false story', then that would be a violation of NPOV. It doesn't mean "narrative" is POV by itself. It means we're picking "narrative" in deference to a pov.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support This should always have been the title ... it is accurate and in line with other related articles. Abtract (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I acknowledge and actually somewhat agree with StevenJ81's point that, in the eyes of committed POV pushers of either the fundamentaist Christian/Jewish/Muslim/etc. kind, or fundamentalists of the new thought/atheist/revisionist kind, no title will ever please all. I also note that this discussion seems to take place much more frequently, without any sort of apparent consensus, than just about any other. So, while I do support a move, following the logic of KillerChihuahua, Doug Weller, and others, I also hope that, one way or another, we don't revisit the issue again in just a few months. If there were any way to bring this discussion to the broadest possible number of editors, I would also very strongly support that, if it would mean not having to go through this discussion again in just a few months. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Interesting discussion. It seems like the tension here is between the principle of least astonishment (readers who take "myth" to mean "a commonly-held but false belief" may be offended) and accordance with academic use (most scholars use the term myth). This tension is reflected in WP:RNPOV by the instructions to "take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense" and to "not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources." WP:LABEL clarifies this by saying "Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term." But there is no context for a page title, so readers have no way of knowing whether we are using "myth" in the formal or informal sense. So it makes sense to me that we use a non-value-laden word "narrative" in the title to avoid offending casual readers, and then, in the article body, when we use the more scholarly term "myth," we can link to an article which explains how we are using the term. This is the status quo, and it seems to me like the best way to resolve the tension. --Cerebellum (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  There is context in the title. "Genesis creation myth" is three words. The second word gives context to the third. The interpretation of "myth" as "false story" is impossible in the phrase "creation myth". That can only be a myth in the technical sense. Hans Adler 08:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't someone interpret it as "false story about creation?" --Cerebellum (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't someone interpret it as a "cloud of tiny droplets"? Normally we work under the assumption that readers have a basic grasp of language. Hans Adler 15:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess our dispute then is about whether or not knowing the technical meaning of "creation myth" is part of having a basic grasp of language. I'm not sure how we can settle that. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. creation myth is accurate and more scholarly. Article titles should be consistent.Upper lima 65 (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. In line with proper usage in academic discourse. There is no reason to avoid this very normal, very appropriate scholarly term just because some agenda warriors might read something into it that it doesn't mean. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This proposed title has been rejected before. The word "myth" has strong negative connotations in ordinary usage and Misplaced Pages is written for a general audience. There is nothing wrong with the present title.--agr (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So I guess you oppose the use of the word "myth" to describe the creation beliefs of all other religions as well as Christianity? Of course not. You like it that way. You're just displaying the same appalling Christian bias of many others here. Is it really a Christian act to treat others so poorly? You give Chritianity a bad name. HiLo48 (talk)

You are making a lot of assumptions about me and my views. Actually, I would prefer we treat the sacred stories of all cultures with respect and go out of our way to chose neutral titles. I would prefer not to use "myth" in any article title, except when it is part of subject's name, e.g. "The Mythical Man Month. As for your accusation that I "give Chritianity a bad name," all I can say is that it made my day. Cheers.--agr (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I for one have no problem using the term "myth" to describe, for example, the Tungusic creation myth or the Sumerian creation myth; these are pretty implausible and unlikely to be true, and are part of belief systems which are essentially defunct. For accounts of creation that are the subject of current debate and are believed by a large number of people, however, I do oppose the use of the word "myth"; I strongly oppose, for example, the title of Islamic mythology. The naturalistic worldview does not have a monopoly on truth, and wikipedia should not pretend that it does. At the same time, however, we should not treat all religions as equally valid. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to restate my argument in terms of Misplaced Pages policy: there are no reliable sources which argue that the Sumerian religion is true, so it makes sense for us to describe it in terms that imply that it is false. This does not mean that we should describe all religions in such terms. There are quite a few reliable sources which argue that Islam and Christianity are true, so per WP:NPOV we should describe them in a balanced way without implying any editorial judgment as to their accuracy. If you accept this argument, then the issue is whether or not "myth" is a neutral term. I (and presumably User:agr) claim that it is not. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Any source that claims the Christian creation story is true is, by definition, an unreliable source. We are NOT Conservapedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What definition are you using? I don't see that in WP:RS. --Cerebellum (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Using that logic, any editor who makes such a claim can, by definition, have their arguments completely discounted since they are clearly pushing an anti-religion bias. HokieRNB 01:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You are suggesting we give preferential treatment to certain religions over others. This is not grounded in wikipedia policy in any way, and is entirely inappropriate for a secular encyclopedia. We do not, and cannot, treat Christianity as more valid than other religions, and such suggestions are why this topic keeps coming up and why some editors feel so strongly that it is a reflection of editor bias. Your response indicates that it is.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That is indeed what I am suggesting. Our NPOV policy calls for "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Based on what we find in reliable sources, we feel comfortable describing the Paul is dead] theory as an urban legend and the Korean War as fact. I am proposing that in the same way, the preponderance of reliable sources should allow us to feel comfortable describing the Maya religion as myth but to use a different term for Hindu cosmology, if there are reliable sources arguing for the truth of the Hindu cosmology. Incidentally, I disagree with the idea that Misplaced Pages is a "secular encyclopedia." As I said above, secular worldviews have no monopoly on truth, and Misplaced Pages should represent the views of reliable sources without discriminating based on metaphysical presuppositions. I don't find, either in WP:NPOV or elsewhere in Misplaced Pages policy, anything saying that we are a "secular encyclopedia." --Cerebellum (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that we are already making these sorts of judgments based on WP:FRINGE. The idea that the Maya religion is substantially accurate is a fringe view and can be treated as such. Major world religions should be treated differently. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If you think wikipedia is a religious work, then you're welcome to propose foundational policy changes at WP:VPP or another noticeboard with that in mind. Until then, wikipedia is absolutely a secular encyclopedia, and I'll reiterate, to the editors who are suggesting this isn't and hasn't been an issue of religious bias influencing !voting, this is a clear example of why others have repeatedly claimed that it is. This is an issue of religious bias. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether the title is "narrative" or "myth", except that the arguments for narrative boil down to a preference for a particular religion, and that is unacceptable.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, in that case there may be something fundamentally wrong with my understanding of Misplaced Pages. What makes you say it is a secular encylcopedia? --Cerebellum (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

NPOV does, by definition; and NPOV is policy. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My reading of NPOV is that we should avoid taking sides and should represent all significant published views. What am I missing? --Cerebellum (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You are missing the meaning of the word "secular". It means neutral with respect to religion; therefore, with respect to religion, NPOV is the same as SPOV. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose because the word "narrative" (see Wiktionary: Narrative) is both linguistically neutral as well as complying with WP:NPOV while on the other hand, no matter how much of a spin and pseudo-justification anyone comes up with, the word "Myth" is just terrible in this case as it specifically relegates the Bible as being equal to "Mythology" which no-one on WP is in a position to decide at this time since Misplaced Pages is not the supreme religious or secular 'council' of anything it can can only convey words in a neutral fashion, it cannot impose obviously biased POV interpretations on any as being "definitive". For too long WP has slipped into anti-religion and hostile atheistic POVs that seem to think they have a right to decide what religions and their ideas should think about themselves. IZAK (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose (yes, I was informed by the note on WP:JEW). It's nice to say in theory myth doesn't imply falsehood, but in practice it does. The whole essence (if not the literal meaning) of WP:COMMONNAME is that what most people use is what we should use. Most people use myth in its informal sense, which has decidedly become standard, common, usage. Usage of words is fluid, not fixed by some academic body somewhere. Myth is suggestive, narrative is not. -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, weakly. After some consideration, I find myself moderately persuaded by arguments against it. Supporters have rightly pointed out that "creation myth" is a term in common usage among scholars, but Misplaced Pages is not written for scholars. Determining the common name of the topic in question would seem to be a difficult job, and not something that could be accomplished by something as simple as a Google search. Conversely, opponents of the move have claimed that myth always implies a fictitious contrivance to the average reader. I think this is generally true, though perhaps not a great reason to oppose the move. WP:RNPOV, however, is not as good a piece of evidence for the supporters as it might seem at face value. While it does state that scholarly terms are not to be avoided simply because they may cause offense, it does not say that consensus cannot decide on another, more accurate term where it is appropriate, clearer, and more helpful than its pedantic counterpart. In this situation, I see no good reason to move, and a few good reasons not to. The current title is neutral (I don't think anyone has disputed that so far), and is perfectly acceptible descriptive terminology that offends neither scholarly sensibilities nor others who would see the proposed title as non-neutral. And for the record, I have no objection to using the same "narrative" terminology in other articles where it is determined appropriate to do so. Inferences to the contrary should have some evidence behind them or risk running afoul of civility policy. Evanh2008  03:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think characterizing this Biblical story as a "myth" constitutes gratuitous religion-bashing despite the occasional use of the term "myth" in relation to this story in academic settings. We as an encyclopedia should not be trying to make a point in our choice of title. A title is just a means of identifying the subject matter that is to follow in the article. The term "myth" is a declaration of "falseness". That is unnecessary. Communicating the quality of "falseness" in the title is in my opinion irrelevant to the identification of the subject in this article by means of a title. This is a drawback found in the term "myth" which is not found in for instance a term such as "narrative". Bus stop (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Religion-bashing? What nonsense. It's even-handedness. Or do the hard-core Christians demand that that their fairy tale gets special treatment. Appalling. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single person here asking for special treatment, and you should ensure that any accusations you make are well-founded in reality. It may also help if you stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is part of some shadowy conspiracy to hijack Misplaced Pages and turn it into a Conservapedia mirror. You don't have to agree with everyone who has posted on this page, but you do have to acknowledge that there have been far more arguments raised in opposition to the move than a simple "I am a Christian and I don't like it". Evanh2008  07:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Everyone in opposition is asking for special treatment for Christianity. That you cannot see that, proves much of what I'm trying to say. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you confuse good-faith attempts to maintain what many to believe a neutral and accurate title with a grand coup by creatonist Christians against the policies of Misplaced Pages. You have single-handedly taken what was a well-reasoned debate on the merits of different article titles and dragged it down into histrionic accusations of conspiracy and bad faith. Personally, I tend to think assuming a conservative Christian bias on my part is somewhat unrealistic, given that I am neither conservative nor a Christian, but why let facts get in the way of your inane rants? Evanh2008  07:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I really don't care what your motives are, but there's something in your thinking that's preventing you from seeing the basic point made by me AND OTHERS that giving the Christian creation story a different name from those of other religions, for ANY reason, simply IS giving Christianity special treatment. If it's because what the sources say, that's because the sources are biased. If the sources come from a broadly Christian country, they will be. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Or it's because the sources know that words mean different things in different contexts. Or it's because the authors of the sources flipped a coin and decided to use "narrative" rather than myth. It isn't our job to interpret why sources say what they say. We report it, and the story ends there. I understand what you're saying just fine. I'm just having a hard time finding any reason to agree with it. Evanh2008  08:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per points made above and in the previous interminable discussions. Fails WP:COMMONNAME (unlike the other religions) and is POV since some people still believe it literally. If consistency is felt to override other policies, nominate the others. The present name is best, but "Creation in Genesis" has some merit from usage. It is less clear though. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing

It is my opinion that notifying only the Wikiproject Judaisman and Wikiproject Christianity noticeboards is canvassing, no matter how neutral the notification. The editor who did this probably didn't consider this aspect. Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. So what's the best way of mitigating the problem now? Removal of the notifications? Adding the notifications to all other noticeboards of projects which could be reasonably considered relevant? Deferring the proposal for a few weeks? —Psychonaut (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's that bad. Not everyone interested in editing on a topic of an Abrahamic religion is automatically a fundamentalist nutter. I suggest notifying the fringe noticeboard as well for balance, because the argument against using the term "creation myth" basically boils down to: The one in Genesis is true, so it can't be called a myth. Hans Adler 11:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I take your point, and I realise I should have notified the other projects as well. I have now done so. StAnselm (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Best way would be notify everyone who has ever participated in the past discussions of this on their talk page. 100% neutral. Plus notices on ALL relevant boards. — raekyt 13:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

For starters, all the WikiProjects that are listed at the top of this page should be notified. They are: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Religion; Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Bible; Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mythology; Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism (already notified); Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Christianity (already notified). First Light (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

These are the users who participated in the last discussion, for what it's worth (not including ips).   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Point of information; then general question

First, as a Request for information (parliamentary procedure), for lack of better phraseology:

What move is actually on the table now? Is it:

• Genesis creation narrative → Creation in Genesis
• Genesis creation narrative → Genesis creation myth

Or is it still just kind-of up in the air?

According to the info-box introducing Genesis creation narrative → Creation in Genesis, "the discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached." It's not clear who is supposed to close the discussion, but it opened on 1 February, and there's no consensus in sight, so I guess the answer is that that discussion is more or less open. In the past these things have sputtered on till everyone got tired and went home. PiCo (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Once that is answered, I would pose the following question: For those who want a move away from the current title of "Genesis creation narrative", is there any name you are willing to accept that does not contain the word MYTH?

• I really appreciate that in an academic sense, this is a creation myth. I'm an Orthodox Jew, but I get that. Really. I do.
• However, it is the word MYTH, more than anything else, that is getting us hung up here.

It feels to me like

• One side of this argument will not settle for anything else than the inclusion of MYTH. It's as if the whole mission of Misplaced Pages's approach to religion has to be to suppress Abrahamic-religious-centered bias, in favor of an academic approach to the subject that is presumed to be WP:IMPARTIAL–but which in reality may or may not be.
• The other side replies tooth-and-nail, demanding no concession to the other side. It's as if Christianity, Judaism and Islam are relegated to the fate of Greek or Norse pantheism if a concession is made. That's just as crazy.

I think Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk · contribs) put it best above:

In fact, it would be easier to argue that WP:LABEL demands we do avoid the term "myth" until we "...establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term" (such as what we do in the first line of the article, by linking to the term)

So I ask again: Are those advocating a move willing to accept any name that does not include the word MYTH? If not, just say so and be done. If so, then let's discuss that proposal. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the answer is probably going to be no. The reason we're having this discussion over and over isn't that editors are opposed to the current title on its own... it's that they feel "Genesis creation myth" is the appropriate title, and choosing something else (particularly for the reason of avoiding any connotation that Genesis is false) is giving deference to one religion over others. The current title was actually arrived upon after quite a bit of compromise, including a number of those editors who ultimately support "Genesis creation myth". If the title was something really objectionable, like "Creation in Genesis", I suspect the answer to your question might be yes; there would be quite a few better titles to choose from then. But at this point, the discussion has been whittled down to "why are we avoiding creation myth given RNPOV, consistency with other religious articles, sourcing, etc." The word "myth" is central to that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that all the time zones of the planet have had an opportunity to respond, but haven't, I'm going to take this as representing, at minimum, a very good working hypothesis. <grin>

Your response stimulates a further question. You have stated that the title "Creation in Genesis" is "really objectionable." Please help me understand that. I stipulate:

1. It's not "creation myth" or any variant. I fully understand your response just above.
2. Per discussion just below the infobox, it's vague. Let's assume for the sake of my question that there is a way to "un-vague" it that is also suitably short for an article title. (Somehow, I don't think this type of problem is evoking the word "objectionable" from you.)

That said, it does seem to be (a) accurate and descriptive, and (b) completely neutral. So help me understand what makes it "really objectionable." Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was primarily observing the strong opposition to it above. Personally, I happen to think it's a bad choice too, and I can tell you why.

• My biggest issue is that it takes an almost religious stance. We don't call the beginning of the universe "Creation" except in religion, so using it in the title assumes a religious pov. "Christian beliefs on the origin of the universe" would be the same idea without assuming a religious stance, for example.
• There is a rather stark inequity to titling many or all other articles Greek mythology, Japanese creation myth, Proper name of a specific book, etc, and then calling this one "Creation". If all other religious articles were called "Creation in...", then I would find the proposal less objectionable... but this discussion only ever seems to come up so strongly with respect to the Book of Genesis, and that is a concern for me.
• The academic sources I have seen do not often refer to it as "Creation in Genesis". It is often referred to as a creation myth, sometimes a narrative, story or tradition. Sometimes just "beginning of the Book of Genesis", or just "Genesis 1". The search results provided above for "Creation in Genesis", for instance, show me that the majority of such appearances are either primarily religious sources, non-academic works, or (in many cases it seems) just sentence fragments and references to different topics. For instance, using Psychonaut's examples: "the account of Eve's creation in Genesis" and "…mode of creation. In Genesis 1…"
• "Creation in Genesis", used as a descriptive title instead of proper noun, isn't very descriptive. Creation of what, exactly? In all of Genesis, or just part of it? What do we mean by "Genesis" - is it the "Book of Genesis"? This would be resolved only through expansion, such as "Creation of the world in the Book of Genesis", a less objectionable (but unnecessarily long) title.
• "Creation in Genesis" does not sound neutral to me. When I read that title, I read "Creation, as (accurately) documented in Genesis". I understand it could be read differently, but it is a concern that I would like to avoid, if possible. "Creation narrative in Genesis" would avoid that problem, since the same substitution ("Creation narrative, as accurately documented in Genesis") is not making a stake in the accuracy of the religious beliefs... just the accuracy of the story as a story.
• "Creation in Genesis" doesn't entirely encapsulate the topic. It is a fundamental narrowing of scope. Discussing the "creation myth" allows us to expand on comparative mythology, cultural influences, and so forth at length. Simply "Creation" implies that we are discussing only the "act of creation", and that other topics should be ideally relegated to other articles (like Book of Genesis and Christian mythology).

That's about it. I think any two of those issues, taken together, are enough for me to strongly oppose a move. Does that make sense?   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Why ... why ... why, yes it does! <smile> No argument on the precision points. Re non-neutrality, I guess I don't read it quite that way. In particular, I don't read the implied (scientific or any other type of) accuracy into that title. But then, I don't read Gen. 1-2 as a Fundamentalist does; to some degree, I feel they've hijacked my Torah, too.

Look at what I wrote above. I was going to vet this general approach to you first (after you answered this last question), but felt I needed to air it now—and I have other things to do in real life now, too. I think the reason I'm willing to allow some inequity (such as in the current title) is that a wide range of people within the general audience would find the use of "myth" with respect to Biblical narrative uncomfortable (or, in terms of WP:CRITERIA, unnatural). To a material extent, that counterbalances the consistency criterion. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

During the big discussions that preceded the last renaming of this article, I did a lot of research, mostly in Christian theological works, but also some on mythology. Unfortunately I forgot where I found this, but if I remember correctly, a scholarly work that compared the known Middle Eastern creation myths explained the genesis of the term 'myth' roughly like this:

At a time when most European scholars still believed in the literal truth of the Bible and scientific research meant combining the evidence (e.g. geological) found in nature with the scriptural chronology, scholars suddenly became aware that certain foundational stories for Greek and Roman culture and religion, as well as various pre-Abrahamic Middle Eastern religions, are to some extent parallel to those in the Bible and possess very much the same inherent qualities. This was a threat to their beliefs, and they dealt with it in much the same way that we are dealing with the fact that there is life around us that behaves very much like we do, by calling this life with the exception of ourselves (at least historically and in normal speech): animals, or if it's even more like us, monkeys. So they came up with a name for all such stories which were not literally true because they were not in the Bible: myth. These stories were just myths, but those in the Bible were not myths, just like humans were not monkeys or animals.

Nowadays most people have no problem with switching between "animal" as an inclusive term for a category of living beings and "animal" as the opposite of "human" inside this category. The term "monkey" was narrowed to a category that doesn't include humans and we now have other terms ("ape" and "primate") that do. So it kept its original pejorative strength. (The article didn't actually mention animals and monkeys, but I have trouble formulating what I learned from it, and this seems to help.) The term "myth" evolved like "animal", not like "monkey". (End of what I learned from that article.)

Everybody now knows that humans are animals. But obviously we live in a human-centred world, and so tend not to make this explicit. Until we get the first conversations with gorillas, chimps and dolphins via brain implements and they start asking for equal rights, this systemic bias is not going to be a problem for Misplaced Pages.

With "myth" it's different. The majority of our readers either do not subscribe to an Abrahamic religion, or they do and don't take the Bible for literal truth in all details. For these, the opposition myth <-> true narrative in the Bible which just happens to look like a myth makes no more sense than the opposition primate <-> human or animal <-> human does for a hypothetical dolphin reader of Misplaced Pages.

Buddhist, Hinduist readers of Misplaced Pages, etc., are not dolphin readers. They exist today, in large numbers, and some of them want neutral information about the Jewish creation myth. If this article starts with a descriptive title that is unnatural and unnecessarily broad, apparently to avoid calling a zoo-keeper an animal calling the story of 7-day creation, Adam, Eve and the snake a creation myth, then that is a very bad start. What can we expect after such a start? Will the dating of the story be based on a best scholarly effort, or will it be fit into a creationist biblical timeline? Will all relevant earlier creation myths be mentioned, or will they be suppressed to prevent the appearance that this creation myth fits into a literary tradition? Maybe it's better to look somewhere else for more accurate information. Hans Adler 20:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(Not advocating for "Creation in Genesis", but for retaining current title:) Do you really find the title "Genesis creation narrative" unnatural and unnecessarily broad, in comparison to "Genesis creation myth"? StevenJ81 (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Creation myth is an established term for the genre that carries all the depth of the technical term myth ("sacred narrative usually explaining how the world or humankind came to be in its present form"). "Creation narrative" is an alternative term using the extremely broad technical term narrative ("any account that presents connected events"). So it's obvious why "creation myth" is the preferred term in almost all cases. The one in Genesis is the only exception, and the reason is not that it is less sacred or more prosaic than a typical myth. It obviously isn't. The reason is the traditional view that myths are only for heathens, while good Christians have the Bible.

"Genesis creation narrative" as a descriptive title is only slightly better than "evolution hypothesis" would be. (I am not aware of anyone arguing for the latter, just made it up for the argument.) Both are correct descriptions, but intentionally hide the obvious: that the creation story in Genesis is more than just any narrative, and that the theory of evolution is a full-fledged theory. The motive is (or would be) to avoid association with the other creation myths / with the other established scientific theories. Hans Adler 22:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If we were discussing body text, I would agree with you 100%. It would be wrong for the body of this article to avoid the language, and it doesn't. But we're not discussing the body text, we're discussing the title. I personally read WP:CRITERIA as showing a preference for a less perfect title that people can agree on to a more perfect title that irritates people.

Think about it this way: If you want to change people's minds on the issue, or even if you simply want to educate them, throwing an uncomfortable title down their throats is not the way to get them to stop and read your article. The purpose of the title is to help people find the article, not to drive them away. The current title helps people find the article as well as the "creation myth" title does. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"Genesis creation narrative" irritates no less than "Genesis creation myth", only different people. Unless by "irritate" you mean a feeling of dissonance between one's beliefs and a reality which refuses to conform to them. That's a kind of deep injury which they must be used to and which nobody here cares about in the case of other religions.

It's absolutely amazing to what extent the feelings of creationists and near-creationists are respected on this article. 5% of this consideration would have been enough to prevent this vote for multiple decorative provocation. (Images clearly have at least the same shock value as titles.)

Another reason why I am not really happy with the current title is that it has merely shifted the front lines. I guess you were not around at the time. Of course you know that now there are even attempts to get rid of "narrative" from the title. Here is what happened w.r.t. to article content shortly after the renaming: Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 13#Change "myth" to "narrative" In talk page archive 10 I actually supported the current title, but due to later events I have changed my mind. It is not appropriate to give a little finger to those who are trying to rewrite this article as the main article on creationism. They are going for both arms and legs. Hans Adler 23:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

WOW lots to read here - not sure there is is much of a problem here as "Creation myth" is in the first sentence. Those that will read the article will see by its content that its just one of many guess works from ancient times on how the world was created.Moxy (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

For some perspective: There is an article epidemiology of teenage pregnancy. According to Merriam-Webster, in "epidemiology of X", X refers to a disease, and that's certainly what I would expect there. Turns out that this usage among medical professionals has broadened to risk factors, so that they are even speaking of "epidemiology of walking". I argued in the relevant discussion that to non-experts the title still suggests that teenage pregnancy is a disease (requiring abortion as a remedy?), but to no avail so far. For me this confirms how irregular it is that here we are pandering to sensitivities connected to an irrational belief. Hans Adler 20:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I can and do see that there is perhaps one basis for asserting that "narrative" is preferable to "myth," if it is thought by the academic world that the story contained in the first few chapters of Genesis is perhaps more than one original myth which somehow were edited together to produce a single coherent narrative. Honestly, I myself honestly at this point do not know the amount of support that opinion has in the academic world or elsewhere, but, if it is strongly supported, then I would prefer the word "narrative", because it would be a more neutral way of describing a text which might, perhaps, be regarded by academics as being a synthesis of more than one preexisting myth. But, again, honestly, I'm not sure whether I or anyone is willing to go through the mountains of text relating to this subject to determine what the consensus of the academic community, or even the academic community who have published reference works relevant to this topic, is. John Carter (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the relevant scholarly communities are all in perfect, essentially uniform agreement that the Genesis creation myth really consists of two separate myths that were written at different times in different styles, use different words for God, and are motivated by the explanation of different aspects of the world. Hans Adler 20:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I thought, but I admit I lazily hadn't read the article since the last proposed move, so I couldn't be sure if things had changed since then. But, that being the case, I guess that could be used to support the "narrative" title, with perhaps separate articles on each of the component myths if they are notable enough and have enough content to warrant separate existence. Considering the amount of material written about this subject, I have to assume that virtually any and all alleged components, including the idea of there being two myths of the origin of Adam and Eve rolled together, probably are notable enough for separate articles, although it might be the case that they might not have enough material to necessarily warrant separate articles. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the idea is more that there are two sources behind the Genesis creation narrative, not that there are two myths laid end to end. The narrative itself makes up a single myth. It has contradictions and inconsistencies, not so much because the Priestly author(s) who made the final edit were slipshod, as because these things simply didn't worry them - they were telling theology, not science. It's interesting to compare this creation account with the Quranic one. The Quran doesn't have a creation narrative - its references to creation are dispersed, they don't make up a single story. You could therefore argue that there's no Quranic creation myth, since there's no coherent story - that assumes the definition of myth as a narrative about God or gods. There is, however, Islamic creation mythology - it's simply not in story form. Anyway, I hope you can tell what I'm getting at: Genesis 1-2 (actually 1-4) draws on two sources if we restrict ourselves to the Yahwist and Priestly authors/editors, and on many if we look more widely at the many myths (Enuma Elish and others) that lie behind those sources, but in the context of the Hebrew bible is a single myth. I therefore don't think it much matters whether we call it myth or narrative. PiCo (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• High-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• High-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Judaism articles
• Mid-importance Judaism articles
• B-Class Bible articles
• Top-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• B-Class Mythology articles
• Top-importance Mythology articles
• Requested moves