Jump to content

Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Logical analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey, maybe you can help me out. The folks over at general relativity insist on using the term geometric theory in the introductory sentence. Can you give them the 'ole model theory 1, 2, and get them to change the introductory sentence to something along the lines of: Physics for Dummies includes the statement "General relativity is a geometric theory"? Thanks mate. Cheers, Ben (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I am a professional model theorist who happened to come along here because of the RfC, and I am astonished to see my subject mentioned here in such a ludicrous, far-fetched way, as in an attempt to give authority to a weak argument. Here is my analysis of the situation:
  • "Myth" has various meanings, including a technical one that fits here, and an informal one that implies falsity.
  • As far as consensus in the relevant academic communities for the factual claims made in Genesis is concerned, there is no doubt that this consensus says that practically all the claims made in genesis are false. (In fact, I learned about Genesis as a creation myth and part of a more general oriental tradition in religious education. So far as I know there is even a consensus among German theologians that it must not be read literally.)
  • There is a Wikipedia-wide consensus not to stress the scientific side in articles about religious topic.
  • Therefore: "Myth" is correct here in both senses mentioned above, but only the first sense is appropriate in this article. Per WP:WTA#Myth and legend we need to contextualise the word. While doing so, we must take care not to imply an actual distancing from the second meaning, i.e. the contextualising must be done subtly.
  • "Creation myth" is a more precise technical term than "myth" and fits perfectly. In fact Genesis is one of the most important examples of a creation myth. The second, inappropriate (in the present context) connotation of "myth" is practically absent in "creation myth".
  • Nobody has suggested a better solution than simply saying Genesis is a creation myth. Making up new terms or using little used ones is not acceptable. If these terms are used only for Genesis, as seems to be the case, then that demonstrates the underlying POV conflict.
Perhaps it's worth mentioning that this kind of careful analysis and weighing of accuracy against possible offence is already much more than what the Muslims get. The article Muhammad is full of merely decorative pictures of Muhammad (I just counted six). While one or two of them might be reasonable to prove the fact that through much of history Muslims had no problem with depicting Muhammad, half a dozen is simply not appropriate given the amount of offence it causes nowadays. Hans Adler 10:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
A professional model theorist? What a pleasant surprise - a topic close to my own heart. A pleasure to meet you Hans, and Guten Tag. It is indeed refreshing to come across a model theorist in a world so dominated by the deep thoughts of supermodels on what to wear tomorrow. And I agree with your point that Genesis is getting an unfair treatment here, e.g. see:
Which one of these has "myth" in the lead? None. However, I still maintain that the use of that word will be rendering a judgment on the content, not describing them. History2007 (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Your list of examples is as silly as the completely unwarranted reference to "supermodels". (My subject and its name are of course older than this silly craze.) This is the article about "creation according to Genesis". If you find "creation myth" in the lead of Jesus, Moses, Christianity, Catholicism, etc., then just remove them. A proper list would have had articles such as Enûma Eliš, or the relevant section of Mithraic Mysteries. Hans Adler 13:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I had always thought that was a funny joke - I studied model theory for long too... But The lead to the Gospel of John does not call the Raising of Lazarus a "myth" so this article should not either. History2007 (talk)
  • "I studied model theory for long too" – I don't believe you, but that's irrelevant.
  • "But The lead to the Gospel of John does not call the Raising of Lazarus a "myth" so this article should not either." – See WP:OTHERSTUFF for general observations about the quality of this kind of argument. And I have been quite careful to explain the difference between "myth" and "creation myth" so far as nuances are concerned. It's rude to ignore that, see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Hans Adler 13:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually Ben, I had seen the general relativity page and it is exactly right. It discusses the Theory of general relativity, not the contents of a specific book. Please read the analysis above again very carefully, then it may become clear to you. And they use the word model in the context of physical model, not a logical model - that would involve an axiomatic definition, e.g. see [1]. Hence the word geometric model is exactly right there, and indeed, indeed, indeed, just today a new dimension opened up with the entropy force. Please read today's (Jan 20, 2010) issue of New Scientist [2] and profit thereby. Now that we are talking science, as another example, consider Entropic Spacetime Theory which is about a book just as this article is about a book. The article does not call Entropic Spacetime Theory a "myth" but just states what the book said. This article should just say what the Bible said, not pass judgment on it. So I think you addressed my argument by stating that you can not understand it. Anyway, it is interesting that so many of the people who critisize creation on scientific grounds can hardly follow the basic elements of modern science.... Oh well..... History2007 (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Could it be that you have missed Ben's point completely? Many creationists like to attack the theory of evolution as "just a theory" making use of the non-technical sense of the word. Nevertheless scientists still use the word in its technical sense, and so do we. I am pretty sure Ben was alluding to this. Hans Adler 12:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and "people who critisize creation on scientific grounds" sounds as if you can't tell the difference between science and religion. I guess this is part of the problem here: Some people are trying to push the long discredited idea that Genesis is an accurate historical account. Hans Adler 13:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I am pushing the idea that no idea should be pushed, for or against. History2007 (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
To me it looks more as if, not content with the fact that science doesn't get undue weight in this religion article, you try to censor anything that can be interpreted as an allusion to scientific facts that don't fit biblical literalism. Hans Adler 13:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, you are coming to the heart of the issue. Do religious articles in general include scientific analysis? If so, why not the one on Shiva or the Raising of Lazarus? History2007 (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This is not about including scientific analysis, although that does in fact become relevant once crazy people start claiming that their holy book is more reliable than scientific research. This is about whether the words in this article may be censored and optimised so as to fit a creationist viewpoint. They may not. Hans Adler 13:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly who claimed that this book is reliable? This article must summarize the book, not judge it. Hello? Is that clear? History2007 (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not OK to just summarise the contents. There is also secondary literature about the book, mostly by theologians, and in a complete article that needs to appear as well. That's where we get precise and concise summaries of the content from, such as "creation myth". The judging happens in your mind; apparently you are over-sensitive to any reference to the discord between the nice story told in this book and physical reality. Hans Adler 13:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you meant one model of physical reality. Hence a POV. History2007 (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. So far as Wikipedia is concerned, the overwhelming consensus of the relevant academic community, where it exists, is simply true. Do you see any particular efforts at Elvis Presley to use neutral language, so as to not create a prejudice concerning the question whether he is really dead? I don't. On the other hand, no undue weight is put on the fact that he is dead. The corresponding fringe theory for this article is treated following the same principles. Hans Adler 18:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This article is not about science. Hence I do not agree. As for no undue weight is put on the fact that Elvis is dead please do not engage in puns about the dead. He may come back to haunt you in your dreams. Have respect for the dead, please. History2007 (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
"This article is not about science. Hence I do not agree." – Questions of correctness are not decided differently according to the article, only questions of weight. Evolution doesn't become "just a theory" here, and Genesis doesn't become "God's own words and therefore literally true", just because this is a religion article.
"As for no undue weight is put on the fact that Elvis is dead please do not engage in puns about the dead." – I was referring to the "Elvis lives" conspiracy theory, which is handled at Elvis Presley in much the same way that we need to handle creationism here: By stating the actual facts without stressing them unduly, and by mentioning the fringe theory with as much weight as its notability warrants. Hans Adler 18:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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

  • WTF? Are they bashing the deceased equine of trying to exclude the word myth again? As a practising Christian I want to go on record as saying that I have no problem with the (precisely linguistically correct) use of the word myth in this context. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
They're slapping a ragged stick against an old bloody stain on the barn floor, yes. At least one individual in this argument seems to think the usage of the word is a grand injustice that requires action RIGHT THE HELL NOW. --King Öomie 17:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad writing

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

Because Creation according to Genesis refers to a whole lot more than the creation of the world and of the first man and woman. Whereas the current intro concisely and precisely explains what the topic is about - a creation myth. This conveys a lot of useful information straight up, but in the event someone is unsure of the term a wikilink to an entire article devoted to the topic that this article is a representative of is given. Finer details, including an explicit mention of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman that you like, are given in the text following. Ben (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree that the term "creation myth" should be introduced later. That would be like deferring the term "state" in the lead of France. However, I do agree that the first sentence is a bit clumsy. In trying to solve this, the fact that we needn't actually use the article's title literally might help. See WP:LEAD#First sentence: "However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." Hans Adler 12:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:LEAD#First sentence gives clear guidance here: "In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction." It also says "If its subject is amenable to definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." Anyone who knows what the term "Creation myth" means learns nothing from the current version. Someone who doesn't is diverted to another article, which is bad style and completely unnecessary. Ben is of course correct that there is more than one way to structure the introductory paragraph, but that cuts both ways. The specialist term "creation myth" can be introduce later and placed in its proper, neutral context, thereby avoiding all this drama. --agr (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
No, "creation myth" is clearly not specialised terminology on this Wikipedia. You might have more success with such a claim over at Simple English Wikipedia, though. The German word for creation myth is Schöpfungsmythos, and the first of the 2600 Google hits that come up for that combined with Religionsunterricht (religious education) make it very clear that this is standard material in religious education in Germany, covered already in 5th form (age approximately 11). For background: Religious education in Germany is payed for by the state, but choice of teachers and control over content lies with the churches. So there is no infiltration by evil atheists going on. Hans Adler 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
What the German state does is beside the point here. History2007 (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Correct. But the fact that in major Western country teaching units on creation myths are standard starting from the fifth form is very relevant to the claim that it's "specialised terminology". Hans Adler 13:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
No, a term such as light year has a special meaning as a measure of distance, but most people, including Joan Baez (listen to diamonds and rust) and NY Times articles think it is a measure of time. Those technical terms mean little to the public. History2007 (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
So are you trying to say that because some people lack basic science education and might be confused we should go edit the article on light year to include a section regarding it's colloquial use as a measurement of time and it's incorrect usage in folk music? The size of the FAIL in your arguements can be seen a light year away. This isn't Conservapedia, we don't sacrifice truth and accuracy in order to write articles that cater to the lowest common denominator. Nefariousski (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure you made this comment on the right page? It does not seem to be related to anything else. Hans Adler 13:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
One could ask the same question about your discussion of the German educational system. In an important part of the English speaking work, the United States, religious instruction is not permitted in public schools. In any case, we do not write our articles on the assumption that everything our readers learned in school is still familiar to them. "Creation myth" is clearly a specialized term. --agr (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
And yet, policy. There's a forum to argue its merits, and it's not this talk page. --King Öomie 14:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I think you'll find that academia and Wikipedia policy have many disparate policy points. The relevant texts are available for your perusal- WP:NPOV and WP:DUE amongst them. WP:RNPOV in particular addresses this issue. As mentioned above several times, "Theory" is a specialized term when used professionally, and this definition is abused day in and day out ("It's just a theory!!!"). Yet, the term remains in articles without an explicit in-line definition, because that's policy. To treat religious issues substantially differently would be inherently biased, wouldn't it? --King Öomie 15:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
And to your other point, it's not Wikipedia's business to respect or disrespect various viewpoints. The relative span of reliable coverage determines the sentiment in the article, within reason (again, WP:DUE). If we were limiting ourselves to politically correct speech, there would be no images at Muhammad.
"Outside of an obvious formal scholarly discussion,"... Well, that's what this is. There's a lot of stuff here that's not conversational material. Try reading the article Nigger out loud at your next family gathering. --King Öomie 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Yes, I agree. But writing is one thing, agenda is another. The agenda of the non-believers vs believers is to shape the minds of the innocent who read this article. The rest is decorative reasoning phrased in terms of Wikipedia policies. History2007 (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the innocent. There's an appeal to emotion if I've ever seen one. I've maintained a single argument that has yet to be even ADDRESSED without strawmen- the opposition has been bouncing from argument to argument. --King Öomie 18:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that we have some simple statements here:

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

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

Off of your 1. myth is not being used here, Creation Myth is being used here. They mean two different things much like college and Electoral College. Policy clearly states in wp:WTA#Myth and Legend that even if we were using the term "myth" all by itself it would be acceptable as long as it's used in the formal sense and as long as it is universally used across faiths which the article on Creation Myths accomplishes.
Off of your 2. The policy clearly states that context is key in the usage of the word "myth" and with a link to the article Creation Myth and a multitude of sources that provide formal definitions on the term that context is provided and due diligence is done to avoid violating WP:RNPOV and WP:WTA
Off of your 3. There is an astounding amount of evidence to indicate that Creation Myth is the appropriate term used far and wide to describe a faith based or supernatural account of how it all began as seen in the half dozen Google Tests and dozens of reliably sourced definitions and articles already posted above. Nefariousski (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I see no evidence that a discouraged word should suddenly be encouraged because it is paired with another word. A creation myth is simply a myth about creation, and I know of no other definition. An electoral college has a specific definition (in the US at least) and is more than just a college that is about elections. That's why it's a special case.
In what way do you believe that the context changes the meaning of myth as we write here?
Someone above claimed that the Google test favoured myth. When I tested it the results were the opposite of what was claimed. (See my posts above). I see no explanation of the discrepancy. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
That's where you're wrong, as cited dozens of times above there are formal definitions of Creation Myth that go into far more detail than defining the words seperately (see college vs Electoral College example. Additionally the google test regarding definitions was against definitions. This is done by typing Define "Creation Myth" and comparing the results against Define "Creation Narrative" or whatever other substitute. The results show that as a distinct and meaningful term Creation Myth is a defined, well recognized and widely used term while the others are not. I don't want to re-iterate the same thing over and over but if you scroll up and look for my posts with all the citations you'll see the google test results. Nefariousski (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The word is not discouraged. Here are the relevant sentences: "However, except in rare cases, informal use of the word should be avoided, and should not be assumed. For instance, avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean something that is commonly believed but untrue. When using myth in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally, for instance by establishing the context of sociology, mythology or religion. Furthermore, be consistent; referring to "Christian beliefs" and "Hindu myths" in a similar context may give the impression that the word myth is being used informally."
This says very clearly that:
  • we must not use "myth" in its informal sense (we don't)
  • when using it in a formal sense we need to make clear that we don't mean the informal sense, e.g. through one of the following means:
    • setting a mythology context (we do, since we say "creation myth", not just "myth")
    • setting a religion context (we do, since the first sentence makes it clear that this article is about a religious topic).
Hans Adler 20:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
"Setting a religion context" is the first good argument for keeping myth that I've seen. However I don't think we establish the context of the word strongly enough. The word is used before we mention religion, and its existence in an article about religious scripture is not enough, given that many take the document as also being a scientific one. However I could be persuaded that a footnote would be sufficient additional context. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I see no need to make the religion context even stronger than it already is, because the words "creation myth", in this combination, refer (almost?) exclusively to the literary genre of which the book of Genesis is probably the most notable representative. But there is nothing wrong with rephrasing the first sentence and removing the schematic language ("[Title] refers to"), which we don't actually need because as I explained above we don't actually need to repeat the descriptive title in the first sentence. Instead we could have something like this: "The Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible, begins with an influential[citation needed] creation myth." (I am sure this wording can be improved.) Hans Adler 21:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Religious articles

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

Is there a branch of Hindu dedicated to proving (using terrible science) that their faith is literally historically accurate? --King Öomie 14:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
That was a question, not an answer. And this article does not aim to prove anything, but summarizes what the book says. Please read the P, Q, R predicates in the logical analysis section above. And I think the existence of Shiva or the Raising of Lazarus is as much subject to debate as this article. History2007 (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have prefaced with "Let me answer your question with a question". But I was already aware that it was, in fact, a question. I was present when I held Shift and pressed "?". --King Öomie 16:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Please read the P, Q, R predicates in the logical analysis section above. History2007 (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've read that section. I believe you missed the point with it, actually. We aren't debating the colloquial, informal use of the word Myth as a term used for something antiquated and incorrect. We're talking about the formal meaning, referring to an ancient faith-based belief, a definition which carries no intrinsic value judgment. --King Öomie 16:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that's why you abused rudiments of logical formalism in a pointless way – it was some voodoo that supposedly turned a weak argument into an unassailable "logical" one. No, sorry, this method may work for a teacher in front of a class, but in Wikipedia you just don't get away with it. Hans Adler 18:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed the misunderstanding. As most people seem to have guessed by now, I was in fact replying to History2007 and misindented. My apologies for the mistake. Hans Adler 21:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see Strawman argument before you speak so eloquently from [REDACTED]. If I make an argument, and you refute a similar, but fundamentally DIFFERENT argument, pointing out the flaw in logic does not make me sneaky and manipulative. We've specified the definition we're talking about a good dozen times. I'm beginning to think this cognitive dissonance is intentional. --King Öomie 18:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Unless you weren't speaking to me, in which case I apologize and instead direct my comment to those who continue to argue in this fashion. --King Öomie 18:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I think Hans was referring to History2007's Logical analysis "black box". Given History2007's last couple of comments above, it looks like he wrote it in the hope that no-one could swallow it and then use it to choke the life out any arguments he couldn't otherwise argue against. Cheers, Ben (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
"Unless you weren't speaking to me, in which case I apologize and instead direct my comment to those who continue to argue in this fashion."
Indeed, I realized from previous comments that he may have accidently indented too far. My anger at being accused of working logical Voodoo to pull a fast one distracted me from actually double-checking, and I apologize to Hans (though I don't know if he's seen it yet). --King Öomie 21:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

(edit conflict) They should absolutely use the same wording this one currently uses. Then again, they're written largely by a different team of people.
I will restate-
  • We use the definition we use because of policy.
  • This isn't the proper forum to discuss changes to it. WT:NPOV is, take it there.
Take your complaints about speed limits to the lawmakers. Showing your disapproval by speeding only gets you a ticket. --King Öomie 16:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Let us see what others have to say. Obviously you think Shiva needs a myth tag too. History2007 (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Now hold on, I mean in the context of a creation myth. I wouldn't go so far as to call Shiva a "mythical diety" in the article or some such (biased) nonsense. --King Öomie 16:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This is your biggest lack of understanding History2007 the word "myth" does not have the same meaning nor is it used in the same context as the term Creation Myth. Wait.... That's already been explained in detail over and over again. Am I being punked? Is there a hidden camera somewhere. "It's not funny Ashton, come out from behind the sofa!" Nefariousski (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but I do not agree with either use here in the lead. History2007 (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Did someone say logic? or science?

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

I think you've missed most points and failed to understand most arguments on this talk page. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, you continue to argue against concepts not in play and take offense to things that were not said. You've added absolutely nothing to this debate. --King Öomie 00:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Path to peace? Nobody comes to religious articles on Wiki in search of peace :) PiCo (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
And with your assumption that people who read Genesis aren't necessarily ignorant or uneducated it is reasonable and fair to think that they will perform due diligence in understanding the formal meaning of Creation Myth and not take any offense where none is intended. Nefariousski (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
That, or come here and complain for half a week about the same old thing. --King Öomie 18:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Touché Nefariousski (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
You know, I didn't notice that earlier, but you're right- we aren't calling the religious stupid. We're assuming they can read something and know what it means. I've been arguing AGAINST "Well what if they're ignorant to this meaning?" this entire time. --King Öomie 18:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Which is exactly my point. Assuming that someone would take offense to a formally defined term that is long established and used academically etc......... means you have to assume said person isn't intelligent enough to understand the context in which the term is used. I don't think we should assume the average wiki reader or average person of faith is uneducated or too dense to take offense where any reasonable intelligent person would realize none is intended. I know that as a practice I personally look up the definition of any term I come across that I'm not completely familiar with instead of jumping to conclusions. After all isn't performing due diligence the the cornerstone of assuming good faith? Nefariousski (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

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

You two are in such a "heated agreement" with each other, I fear your keyboards may catch fire... But I do not agree at all. Deep down many opponents feel that science is King and religion is ignorance, even if that is not said upfront. Ben for instance, seems to have an amazing attachment to Einstein as a God the Father archetype. This may help set him free of that substitutionary archetype [3]. Anyway, it is beside the point really.... Your minds are set..... Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Please don't attempt to psychoanalyse the editors here. It is considered uncivil and a violation of policy. Your "advice" is unhelpful and I suggest you strike it. Auntie E. (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
History2007, I disagree with the suggestion that you strike it. I see nothing that clearly warrants that. If the complainant wants to go through and identify potentially uncivil violations on this talk page, Auntie E. will find many to write about. Singling you out like this, given the wretched environment that has been created by such clearly offensive ugliness approaching gutter talk is not appropriate. Afaprof01 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Aunt Entropy? What an interesting user name.... Shall I psychoanalyze that?... Maybe not today, she has not insulted me yet. The person I talked about was Ben and he called me a fool only twice so far... but what do I care? As for me being singled out, maybe it is because I am just an ignoramus religious type with a PhD and over 50 science publications... but an ignoramus religious type according to some views I guess, so I get singled out.... I think I will go away and cry for some time now.... Makes me laugh... And Hans (Mr professional theorist) came out and flatly said that he does not believe that I know model theory... By the way Mr Hans professional Model Theorist, which way did C.C. the MOST famous model theorist of all time part his hair, right or left? His picture is not on the web, so you would have had to have met him to know... so which way was it? If you do not answer, there may be some analysis.... just kidding... History2007 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean to sound completely unhinged? You're not talking about the issue at hand anymore. You're talking about the individuals involved. If you can't stay on topic, then I request that you leave us be to discuss it. --King Öomie 22:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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

That's great. Do you have anything to say about the term Creation myth?I have no interest in your other ramblings. I will say one final time: if you disagree with policy, DISCUSS IT AT THE POLICY'S TALKPAGE. --King Öomie 07:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Were you being sarcastic with "great" or serious. The term Creation myth is the predicate Q above applied to the book, it does not summarize what the book says, but attaches a judgment to it. Simple. Now why isthere no judgement attached to Shiva, again? History2007 (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
"Predicate Q" is complete nonsense, and has nothing to do with the topic of whether or not 'creation myth' is a scholarly, well-supported term (spoiler: it is). We're not talking about the word "myth". We're simply not. We're talking about "creation myth".
If he Shiva article talks specifically about that god's part in creation according to Hindu tradition, then yes, that section should certainly use the term "Creation myth", and not "sacred canon" or whatever else. No one here is advocating calling Shiva himself 'mythical', nor god in this article.PLEASE get this through your head, as I'm tired of explaining it. --King Öomie 00:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
This is incredibly silly. In the first sentence of an article about a novel we say that it is a novel and who wrote it. In the first sentence of an article about a creation myth we say that it is a creation myth. This is not about a "judgment from science" at all. It's about saying very concisely what kind of literary genre we are dealing with. History2007, you are making it a matter of science by trying to censor the correct term based on possible science-related overtones. But being only overtones they don't present a weight issue, and the associations being actually correct according to everybody but a few fringers they are not misleading either. Hans Adler 12:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tying this off.

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

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

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

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

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

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

— User:Tonicthebrown, "seconded" by User:AFAprof01
Rationale: It is not what I would write if I owned the article, but it's something I agree to live with since it deals with all major objections except for
  • (a) omitting myth altogether, which I don't think is going to happen; and
  • (b) putting myth immediately after the article title, which is the most objectionable possible place to put it. There is no practical way to move it any closer to the top, the place of greatest emphasis, viability, and notability.
Nothing is going to be either perfect or totally pleasing to everyone. One practical definition of a consensus is "a proposal we can all live with." As has been pointed out, there is a lot of rather obvious insisting on getting one's own way, and an accompanying unwillingness to negotiate or compromise. There is suggestion that some are using this as a form of amusement to insult and belittle others both personally and ideologically, not unlike the truculence that might accompany one who "picks wings off of flies." In society we honor competent, productive people of good sense, folks who understand that for a society to thrive, its people need to care for and cooperate with each other. Should the duty of Wiki editors be any less?
Respectfully, User:AFAprof01
Seeing as someone has brought up my earlier proposal, here's a small modification of it that may be more acceptable to the majority:

Creation according to Genesis refers to the text found in the opening two chapters of the book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible. This text has been identified as a creation myth by scholars,Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). and has religious significance for Christians and Jews."

(By the way, I would not identify myself as an evolutionist. I am neither a young earth creationist or a theistic evolutionist.)
I think Afaprof has made a helpful comment, namely that none of us should behave as if we have ownership of this article. It would appear to me, having read much of the interaction above, that certain editors who support the existing lead are behaving in this way. Tonicthebrown (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
It has not been overlooked since I replied to that proposal above. Honesty really does seem like a foreign concept to you Afaprof01. Anyway, I'm not going to repeat myself here, so if you want to reply to my comments above then do so, and I will reply there also. Ben (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
For sure there's no consensus on using the term "creation myth" in the first line. I remember predicting that this would happen, so it's just as well I'm not the sort to say I told you so. Though I did. But I'm not saying it. As for Tonic's suggestion, it's not really a starter I'm afraid - "Creation according to Genesis refers to the text found in the opening two chapters of the book of Genesis"? It doesn't refer to those chapters, it is those chapters. This isn't a definition, it's a tautology. PiCo (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Pico and I would observe that whenever Ben feels pressured, he insults people, as he insulted Afaprof01 just here.... He will make an interesting subject for psychoanalysis. I wonder if he fears that I will pray for him... some people fear that... Anyway, who wants to "own" this article? Not me.... it is in a neighborhood with too many insulting people. But I think if you are to propose that Afaprof the order must certainly change, namely: "This text is regarded as a religious account of creation by Christians and Jews and as creation myth by some scholars." Since we can not be sure that all scholars agree. Pico, would you like to rewrite that since you know how? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote of confidence History2007, but I'd rather stay out of this hornet's nest - like you, I don't like to hang around unpleasant people. (And just for the record, I'm a secularist and an evolutionist) PiCo (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Copying the above proposed paragraph into the article. It's the closest we have to consensus. AFAprof01 19:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the current intro has consensus sans minor wording changes that have been discussed above (Hans comments come to mind, for instance). Changes like this one that go against policy, as I've explained above, will be reverted on sight. Ben (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Tonic's revision directly above seems acceptable. Bugs et al., to say that some people here insist on referring to the Biblical account as "fairy tales" sounds a bit like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The point has been made here countless times that the term "creation myth", based on the real definition of the term, implies no such thing. Additionally, saying lots of people might think "untruth" when they see it might be overlooking the possibility that readers might exercise due diligence and check the linked meaning of the term before assuming what it means. Those opposing "creation myth" should notice that the rest of us are not saying those words should necessarily appear unqualified; indeed, the fact that those words link to a definition of the term (which explains that the idea of "untruth" is not intended) completely removes any apprehensions I might have had as a Christian. As such, I hereby state my support for the term "creation myth". As it applies to me personally, I wouldn't care if it were called a narrative/story/account/whatever, since I do believe it to be factual – but the term "creation myth", as defined here on WP, is not incompatible with my beliefs, since it sounds plenty neutral to me. And that's all I have to say.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 04:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Unanswered questions & unbalanced treatment of topic

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

Dude, each one of those articles has their own talk page. You've wandered so far into irrelevant territory that I'm not even going to bother replying to your comments any more unless they're directly relevant to this article and in line with this projects policies. Ben (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the obvious, as usual. But the question is highly relevant. History2007 (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Ben doesn't care about the other religions. His need to call religions a fairy tale is limited to the Bible - as he demonstrated many months ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
They're all listed under the Creation Myth article as Creation Myths Genesis is not being singled out. On the contrary not listing it as a Creation Myth does single this article out and thus violate WP:WTA#myth and legend. This has been explained over and over and over. Nefariousski (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Sorry, but you must not be aware that Ben has been pushing this viewpoint in a number of related articles, for quite awhile now. This article does not exist in a vacuum. This is a common theme across multiple articles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
If you're calling this a viewpoint, then I can only assume you're ignorant of the topic at hand- that is, the scholarly acceptance of the term "Creation Myth". --King Öomie 00:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
You know Mr King, regarding the insult you handed Baseball_Bugs now by calling him ignorant, there is an old saying/joke in legal circles: "If the facts are against you argue the law, if the law is against you argue the fact, if both the facts and the law are against you, call the other guy a schmuck". So I guess both the facts and the policies must be against you to keep calling people ignorant. History2007 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Ignorant \Ig"no*rant\, a. Unacquainted with; unconscious or unaware. If I'd meant to insult him, I would have kept typing and called him an ignoramus. But I didn't, so I didn't. Stop trying to stir up trouble. --King Öomie 00:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
While I'm talking about Bugs- If you're only here to talk about other editors, and have no actual input for this discussion, I'll ask you to... discontinue that activity. History2007 has that ground covered. --King Öomie 00:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you have disinvited me from this page more often than it has rained in Seattle. But no thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
At last count, once. --King Öomie 01:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

resolving the larger issue once and for all instead of piecemeal

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

Creation myth is the proper description by reliable sources, and some don't like it because they feel the connotation is negative. Since WP:CENSOR is policy, and there is no WP:OFFEND to point to, these discussions end with the M-word being accepted by consensus. So that idea may not be acceptable to some. The minority will wish to replay the argument again and again. See Talk:Muhammad/Images. (It's a page I watchlist, and I couldn't reasonably refute those anti-image people's arguments while simultaneously accepting the anti-"myth" ones.) Auntie E. (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
You and Ben are hiding behind one technical definition of "myth" to promote the point of view that the Bible is a collection of fairy tales, as that's what the general readership understands when they see the word "myth". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Nope. I don't consider the Bible to be fairy tales, not at all. I consider it's truth to be undeterminable. Which is what the definition of myth means. Auntie E. (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
No, the general public knows that "myth" means "fairy tale". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:RNPOV. Dictionary be damned, they know what it means. --King Öomie 01:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The primary usage of "myth" by the general public equates to an untrue story. Wikipedia is not written for "scholars", it's written for the general public. And when the first sentence says "the Bible is a lie", it's going to reinforce the perception that wikipedia has a liberal bias. That does not serve the interests of either the public or wikipedia well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
This + this is a massive failure of WP:NPOV. Ben (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
And for the 40th time this debate, someone argues against policy HERE, rather than at the policy page. Bugs, are you seriously debating that it is improper to use scholarly language relevant to the topic at hand? I think you're looking for Simple Wiki. --King Öomie 02:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a "scholarly" encyclopedia, it's an encyclopedia written by and for the public. And insisting in the first sentence, that the subject of the article is a lie, is not a good start. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
No one is doing that. Per RNPOV, worries about how many people know the technical definition of a term are irrelevant. If you disagree, argue there. --King Öomie 02:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm also wondering why they (Bugs in this case) never apply exactly the same logic to the term theory? As soon as you consider how the logic applies to other terms in the English language it's patently clear that it's a non-argument, and very likely the reason this is mentioned in the WP:NPOV policy. Ben (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
It is not appropriate to use the very first sentence of the article to label the Bible stories as lies, fairy tales, folk tales, whatever. That's a POV. The first sentence as it reads right now is totally neutral and totally factual. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I implore you to look up the definition of "creation myth". Please.
"It's a lie! A farse! Fiction, I tell you!" <- This isn't it. Stop presenting it like it is. We're only talking about Genesis, which contains the judeo-christian creation myth. Which is what scholars call it. And thus, so do we. --King Öomie 02:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The article already covers the "creation myth" scenario in spades. The problem is that you want to ram it down the readers' throats, in the very first sentence, that the Bible is a pack of lies. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Just like Theory of evolution jams the same sentiment down reader's throats, right? I mean, everyone KNOWS that's what Theory means. I guess Wikipedia has a conservative bias? --King Öomie 02:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
"Theory of evolution" is a well known expression. Calling the Bible a myth is the same thing as calling it a lie. It's a POV-push. The first sentence should stay the way it is, as it's the only neutral way to present the facts. And FYI, since you accuse me of bias, you don't have a clue as to what my true opinion is on the subject. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
No, don't deflect. "Theory of evolution" is well-known, but not its meaning. MANY people (typically southern Americans) think "It's just a theory!" is a legitimate argument, because they have no idea what the word means in a scientific context. This is the same issue, despite your protest. --King Öomie 03:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Lead text

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

This article is talking about a creation myth, and as such should state this in the lead sentence. It's really that simple, and no valid argument has been presented against doing so. Ben (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
That's funny, the definition of Creation Myth is a religious or supernatural account of creation. Aren't we being redundant? Nefariousski (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
No, the article is about the start of the Bible. As the second sentence makes clear, the "myth" part is a matter of opinion, not fact. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a fact, and there exist citations for this fact (and the mainstream acceptance of this fact) in the text above. Ben (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not agree with Ben at all. Simply stating it is a fact 1000 times achieves nothing. And I do not see the big deal here. In fact, I think BeebleBrox's comments were very much to the point. And I think BaseballBugs has said the right things again and again. However, if Arbcom needs to settle the matter so be it. I am ready for the long haul. Moreover, I think the reasonable comments BeebleBrox made to Ben on Ben's talk page were a good piece of the lecture Ben needed. A fee more such lectures by Admins will be in order. History2007 (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I did more than simply state something, I referenced this fact and the fact that the mainstream consider it so. Ben (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
History2007: Baseball Bugs has ignored the arguments to discuss the motivations of the editors "again and again." Not surprising you may think that is good argumentation, since you engaged in the same thing above.
I think using the term "creation myth" with a bit of a definition is infinitely preferrable to the inline attribution of "Scholars consider" which actually gives the wrong idea about the definition of the term. Many Jews and Christians also consider it a creation myth because they aren't ignorant of the definitions of the term. So Bugs' lede is not accurate. Auntie E. (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
It's already thoroughly covered. But Ben's not satisfied with that. He wants to insist, in the first sentence, that it's a fairy tale. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, "Insist" would be an appropriate middle name here my friend. And he also insisted that he was not close to the 3revert line. But we all learn... some sooner than others.... History2007 (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I think Auntie E. makes a good point. Saying "Scholars consider" kind of makes it sound like scholars don't believe in the story of creation, but christian and jews do.Chhe (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's a point. It's saying that only the ignorant consider the Bible to be "true". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Bugs, it's not OK that you also engage in this disruption now. There may be parts of the Bible whose literary genre is that of a fairy tale, but I doubt it. (I guess I would know about them.) The literary genre of this particular part is that of a creation myth, and there is no reason to censor this fact, just like there is no reason to censor the fact that communism is an ideology or beer is an alcoholic beverage. Hans Adler 13:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

or as

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

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

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

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

  • What does "religious account of creation" mean?
  1. Mainstream reading: It is a religious story about the origin of the world. No particular claims are made about whether the "truth" of the story is to be found on a literal or a more metaphorical level.
  2. Minority (creationist) reading: It is a historically and scientifically accurate description of the origins of the world.
With the mainstream reading, saying without further qualifications that "Christians and Jews" regard it that way is accurate but misleading, because so does almost everybody else including scholars. And the continuation of the sentence suggest that scholars contradict. With the minority reading, saying that "Christians and Jews" regard it that way is seriously misleading as it implicitly states that most Christians and Jews are creationists, which is simply not true. Cheap rhetorical tricks such as playing with the two possible readings of a phrase to promote a fringe theory have no place in Wikipedia.
  • What does "creation myth" mean?
  1. Normal reading: It's a literary genre, see creation myth.
  2. Minority reading: It's a myth in the colloquial sense that talks about creation, thus roughly a synonym for "creationist myth".
With the normal reading of "creation myth" most Christians and Jews actually agree with the scholars that Genesis starts with a creation myth. (As I explained previously, putting the creation myth in Genesis into the context of contemporaneous creation myths is standard material in Christian religious education at least in Germany.) The opposition Christians/Jews think vs. scholars think, however, suggests the second reading. But this is not at all OK according to WP:WTA#Myth and legend: We are not supposed to use "myth" in this sense at all. We only use it in a technical sense, and then we must make it clear that we mean the technical sense, no go out of our way to suggest the non-technical sense.

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

So the long and short of it Hans? How will you say that some Christians think X and Scholars think Y. The opposing sentence wants just the scholars and no mention of Christian and Jews. So suggest 3 sentences please. History2007 (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the single sentence as it stands. --King Öomie 14:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
My question was to Hans. I know what the "Ben and the King" duo wants. I would like to hear from other editors now, e.g. Hans and Aunt Entropy if they want to come up with suggestions. I would suggest that each suggestion have two components X and Y that address the religious and scholarly issues. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not OK at all to say that "some Christians think X and Scholars think Y". First we present the facts, and then we mention the creationist fringe view. Hans Adler 08:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Break

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

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

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

Yes, pretty much. Our point is that WP:RNPOV specifically states that the final question you posit is irrelevant, and that the formal meaning (myth²) is ALWAYS to be used. --King Öomie 16:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
"...editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." --King Öomie 16:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, and that if they disagree with that reasoning, that WT:NPOV is the forum for that discussion, NOT this page. --King Öomie 16:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I think Gabbe has a logical train of thought. However, as I stated above, I would like to hear what other opposing editors beside "Ben and the King" (whose views are well known) suggest as two sentences X and Y each addressing the religious and scholarly issues. It would be best if we just get their suggestions first, sans endless debate, then see where that leads. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Making a false distinction is not encyclopedic. The sentence that has been fully protected in the page is absolutely inaccurate, and even worse than leaving out the words CM all together. I will accept an in-line definition of "creation myth." Let's take this opportunity to enlighten those on the meaning of this phrase instead of demanding they stay ignorant. (On Muhammad, we give the opportunity for viewers to turn off the images. We don't delete them, no matter how many times those offended beg, plead and threaten.) Auntie E. (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Apart from debate, I was asking you to suggest a new lead and different lead on your own. Then we see what happens. It will cost nothing to suggest. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Except time, copious amounts of which have been wasted by you rehashing the same arguments. The lead, as it was, had no issues.Two statements are not needed to deliver the same information- the sentence there now is unambiguous pandering to Christian sensibilities. All christians and jews see Genesis as a creation myth- the term does not imply falsity. To present it otherwise is purely disinformation. --King Öomie 17:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you meant "pure disinformation". History2007 (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the lead did have style issues. "[Long descriptive title] refers to ..." is not a good format for a lead at all. It's Wikipedia-speak of the worst kind. But it should be possible to fix this issue without giving in to creationist POV pushing. Hans Adler 17:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I mean that it wasn't the sneaky, horrible atheistic conspiracy that's been presented. --King Öomie 17:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course it isn't. And I am quite surprised by the strategy that is being tried here. So far I have only heard of repeating "[Those guys who are really on our side but not extreme enough] are far, far on the other side and shouldn't be allowed to continue because they are so extreme!!!" as a strategy of the US right wing. It's the first time I see this thoroughly unethical strategy applied on a talk page. Hans Adler 17:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

I have pointed to it before, but I am not sure that anyone is listening:
"If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface. So, for example, Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers begins with:

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

Simple descriptions such as “History of the United States” or “Timeline of prehistoric Scotland” should be bold."
This is straight from WP:LEAD. The present title is somewhere in between the "descriptive" and "simple descriptions" examples, so it would be OK to simply not repeat the title literally in the first sentence. Hans Adler 08:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
(→ Auntie E.) Alternatively to biblical creation myth or Genesis creation myth, as used in books like the award winning Tree of souls: the mythology of Judaism and many many other sources. This would actually let us completely disambiguate the term creation myth in the opening sentence, for instance, The biblical creation myth is the (some favoured expansion of the term creation myth here) contained in the first two chapters of the first book of the Hebrew bible, the book of Genesis. It would also be consistent with most other pages on creation myths on Wikipedia (Chinese creation myth, Sumerian creation myth, etc., and the countless X mythology pages). Ben (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Works for me and looks like a good compromise. Hans Adler 11:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for suggestions

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

I have made such a suggestion. Not sure why it was ignored. You are free to copy it here. Hans Adler 17:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry this page is so long I am not sure where it is. Could you please just type it here, remove my comment and yours and just leave it here as a starting item for a list. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
"regardless of the justifications."
This is counter-productive. --King Öomie 18:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

List of suggested paragraphs

* 2 Creation according to Genesis refers to the account of creation found in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis, the Hebrew Bible. For Jews and Christians the text is highly esteemed with religious authority, though interpreted in a wide variety of ways. Scholars frequently refer to the account as an example of creation myth in their attempts to pinpoint its proper literary genre, though the commonalities and differences with other creation myths are much disputed. ─AFAprof01 19:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Replaced below:
  • 8. Creation according to Genesis refers to the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Christian Bible and the first book of the Pentateuch. Handed down from ancient Judaism and preserved through oral kerygma, this creation account is shared by both Judaism and Christianity. Most Biblical scholars refer to Genesis as a creation myth with the underlying message of an God that is a part of all things. However, there are Scholars that would maintain a literal translation of the text. CapHammer (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

List of suggested paragraphs with comments

  • Creation according to Genesis refers to the account of creation found in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis, the Hebrew Bible. For Jews and Christians the text is highly esteemed with religious authority, though interpreted in a wide variety of ways. Scholars frequently refer to the account as an example of creation myth in their attempts to pinpoint its proper literary genre, though the commonalities and differences with other creation myths are much disputed. ─AFAprof01 19:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Dab, that debate has taken place, N times on this page, with N growing rapidly. Now I am just gathering paragraphs from different users to show the wide range of opinions. Please let users suggest paragraphs for a day or two, just to see what they "like to see". That may just provide a better idea of user perspectives, which are obviously diverse. History2007 (talk)
No more policy discussion? Done with literary deconstruction? We're down to OPINIONS now? Irrelevant. I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that you're presenting this debate as continuing ad nauseum. --King Öomie 20:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Policy and other discussions can take place all over this page of course. This list can grow in parallel - no extra charge. History2007 (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Some references to contemporary theologians, specifically supporting Afaprof01's version: <ref>''The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17'' (part of ''The New International Commentary on the Old Testament'') by Victor P. Hamilton, 1990, p. 56-58.</ref><ref>P. Grelot, ''Le Couple humain dans l'Ecriture'', 1964, quoted in ''Creation Theology'', Jose Morales, 2001, p. 161</ref><ref>"The Phenomenology of Symbol: Genesis I and II" by Frank Flinn, in ''Phenomenology in Practice and Theory: Essays for Herbert Spiegelberg'', William S. Hamrick, 1985 p. 235</ref><ref>''[[International Standard Bible Encyclopedia]]'', article entry "MYTH", 1994 edition.</ref><ref>''Systematic Theology'', [[Robert Jenson]], 1997, p. 11</ref><ref>Richard E Averbeck, "Sumer, The Bible and Comparative Method" in ''Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Evaluations'', 2003, p. 109.</ref>. But, I suppose these do not qualify as "theologians" by the "only those who agree with us are the true theologians" litmus test. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I don't think those are poor references at all but do have one issue with their relevence to the topic at hand. Their writings are not regarding the concept of creation as an interfaith topic. Nobody is disputing that Christians or any faith for that matter think their Creation Myth is holy, sacred, beyond reproach etc... I have a hard time seeing the justification or need to say that Christians believe in and hold in high esteem stories in a book that chronicle their beliefs. That's much akin to saying that fans of Star Trek hold the Star Trek series of TV shows and movies in high esteem. Furthermore, The concept of the differences and similarities to other Creation Myths is out of place in the intro but would make an excellent section in the article and surely those sources you found would provide for a lot of interesting comparisons between the Abrahamic Religions and the rest of the assorted faiths out there. Nefariousski (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
In my view this one makes the most sense of the five listed so far. Gabbe (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Creation according to Genesis is a narrative found in the opening two chapters of the first book of the Hebrew Bible. This creation myth is regarded by some Christians and Jews as a literal and authoritative account of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman.
    If all that really matters on one side of the argument is that the word "myth" is not in the first sentence, and all that really maters on the other side is that the word "myth" not be relegated to some sort of marginalized scholarly opinion, why can't the first sentence avoid the word, and the second sentence start with the fact that the article refers to a creation myth? Everybody knows that Michael Jackson is the King of Pop, but it's not mentioned until the second sentence. Is this really that difficult? Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Half-way there. The 2nd part is to define creation myth as a literary genre not implying fiction or fantasy. Can you propose a way to do that as well? ─AFAprof01 (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, see creation myth. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The Michael Jackson article is about "an American singer, dancer, and entertainer", this article is about a creation myth. Ben (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
And by that you suggest that it is not about a narrative, nor is it found in the opening two chapters? No one is trying to take away your precious myth descriptor. (Well, at least at this point I assume they're not.) All that is being asked is that it is introduced after the first sentence. Is that too much of a concession to make? Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
This article is about a creation myth, and you're asking that the article not tell readers this in the first sentence. Would you ask that the Michael Jackson article not tell readers that he was "an American singer, dancer, and entertainer" until the second sentence? Please tell me you see how silly this request is. Ben (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is "creation myth" the only apt descriptor that you can conjure for this topic? Why not "sacred narrative"? Why not "historical account"? Why not "ancient story"? Why not "religious teaching"? All fit the bill. There are plenty of verifiable things that the reader is not told in the first sentence. And the first sentence makes perfect sense without any of them. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
If the relevant experts refer to this articles topic as a creation myth why would we not? I'm not looking for information on any other terms, I would just like to know why we would not keep in line with the relevant experts? Cheers, Ben (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
In case you failed to read the actual suggestion, it doesn't propose to eliminate the phrase "creation myth". It seeks merely to move it into the second sentence to assuage the (by my rough count on this page alone) ten or so editors who agree that it's out of place as an unqualified term in the opening sentence. My math may be slightly off, but it seems that your horn of "the only place the term can go is immediately after the title" is only being tooted by 3 or 4 editors. Wouldn't you think a reasonable compromise would be to leave the term unqualified, but move it to the second sentence? It's still a highly relevant term if introduced 16 words later. The only significant qualifiers before it in my suggestion are "narrative" and "Hebrew Bible". Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
This doesn't answer the question. Let me rephrase: This article is about a creation myth (per relevant experts), why would we not introduce the article as such? Ben (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Your question is invalid. My suggestion includes the use of "creation myth". Therefore, we do introduce it as such. My question still exists. Why are you unwilling to allow the use of that word in the second sentence rather than the first? Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
My question is valid. You introduce the article's topic and only after that do you use the term creation myth. My question is centred around looking for a valid reason to do that. And I answered your question already: relevant experts describe this article's topic as a creation myth, and we should introduce the topic as such. Alternate terminology can be introduced later (after the introductory sentence) if the need arises. Cheers, Ben (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
By it's very definition this article describes a Creation Myth. "Sacred Narrative" or any of your other suggestions are not formal terms nor do they have academic definitions that apply to this article. There is no valid reason to shift it down or minimalize it. Nefariousski (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
In my view, the big problem with this suggestion is that it puts the view that Genesis is "a literal and authoritative account" in the second sentence. This is a viewpoint held by a very small minority, not only in natural science but in Christianity, Judaism and general biblical scholarship as well. While this view might deserve mention somewhere in the article, bluntly putting it in the lead paragraph would go against WP:DUE, WP:GEVAL, etc. Gabbe (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is why I think a different version merits consideration: In general, a good definition should not use the word being defined. Therefore, to start an article on the Fall of Man stating that it is a story about man's fall from a perfect state would be poor writing. In the same way, defining "Creation according to Genesis" as a creation myth... is redundant. That's why I proposed restating it to begin the second sentence. A good definition requires a classifier and a differentiator. The classifier tells the reader which bucket it's in, and the differentiator tells the reader how it's unlike the others in the bucket. It should avoid the use of "refers to", if possible. Therefore, Creation according to Genesis is a narrative [classifier], found in the opening two chapters of the first book of the Hebrew Bible [differentiator]. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
In this case the Classifier is Creation Myth which shouldn't sound redundant with the title of the article because it's actually referring to the story of Genesis 1-2 not "Creation according to Genesis" as some well used formal term. The differentiator is the Hebrew Bible which makes it a unique Creation Myth. I do see your point about being redundant in definitions but I don't see Creation and Myth as seperate entities in the sentance but as one term. Much in the same way I wouldn't oppose an article on "Electoral process in the United States" having the term Electoral College in it's opening paragraph or part of a definition. If the title of the article was "Creation Myths of Genesis" then I think your point would be 100% valid. Nefariousski (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Maher-shalal-hashbaz, did you see my suggestion above about the article title that would then allow us to accommodate both of our preferences? Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Point taken. I would like to (A) recant my statement about numbers of editors favoring the opposing sides of this issue, and (B) offer another possible compromise. It appears after careful study of the page that there are slightly more editors favoring the unqualified use of the term "creation myth" in the opening sentence of the lead paragraph. However, there are still a significant number of editors who oppose this term. While some may wish the term banned completely, the majority seem only to wish it qualified/defined, or desire to have it introduced later in the lead paragraph. I would like to propose the following, which simply moves the term further within the first sentence, so that it is not the absolute first term the reader encounters. Perhaps this will pass muster:
Genesis contains more than one creation myth? If this is a way of implying "there's at least a creation myth (=formal term) in it, there might be a myth (=informal term) in there as well" then that would be against WP:WTA#Myth and legend. We're not supposed to use this informal meaning of the word "myth". Gabbe (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I would really like a definition template on the article that one can click to after the words "creation myth" (in fact, I remember a compromise of the sort used in a situation like this) rather than the inline definition, but I think the definition should be on the page. Our goal should be to enlighten our readers. More information is a good thing. Auntie E. (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. While I tend to not be a fan of inline definitions after a formal term that is wikilinked to the article for said formal term (seems redundant to define something that can be clicked on and read for more detail) something additional seems to be required to reach consensus. Also along the lines of following previous compromises why not add a FAQ section to the talk page that addresses any possible points of confusion? Nefariousski (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Nef: How about selecting something additional from the list of items that are already agreed upon. I will start such a list below. Thanks for suggesting it. History2007 (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
FAQ sections on talk pages (even edit notices) only stop users capable of stopping to read. If you have WT:SIG watchlisted, you might notice that that isn't many. --King Öomie 19:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Ben's suggestion makes a lot of sense. It's bold, but accurate. It has the potential to appease all sides of the debate (depending on the wording you left out in the paranthesis). It's clearly in line with WP:WTA#Myth and legend, WP:RNPOV, and other policies. It was suggested more than 15 hours ago and nobody has (yet) said they thought it was a bad idea. Gabbe (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Creation according to Genesis refers to the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Christian Bible and the first book of the Pentateuch. Handed down from ancient Judaism and preserved through oral kerygma, this creation account is shared by both Judaism and Christianity. Most Biblical scholars refer to Genesis as a creation myth with the underlying message of an God that is a part of all things. However, there are scholars that would maintain a literal translation of the text. CapHammer (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm open to comments. I have no agenda, just an interest in the area.I'm happy to add as many references as people would like.CapHammer (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Like with the redacted suggestion above, the big problem with this is that it brings up the literalist interpretation crowd in the final sentence. This is a very small minority. It would be like saying "However, there are scholars that would maintain that Genesis was written by the lizard people from outer space". It's WP:UNDUE. Also, the ones calling Genesis a creation myth is not limited to Biblical scholars, but includes anthropologists, philosophers of religion, etc. How about changing "Most Biblical scholars" to "Academics"? Gabbe (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Gabbe! Re- Changing "Most Biblical scholars" to "Academics" - That's a great idea! I should have thought of that. The broader term does encompass the larger group of disciplines that see it as important mythologically. I agree with you observation. I do see your point about creationists, but creationism using Genesis as a basis is still a very real belief. Maybe we could concede the point by saying "A minority of scholars would maintain a literal translation of the text"? or "There are a small number of people..." From a perspective of a sociological hermeneutic, there are a number of laity as well as clergy who still teach Genesis as literal. Maybe this article should reflect that, as disagreeable as that may sound. Open to ideas! CapHammer (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 2 (revised) Creation according to Genesis refers to the account of creation found in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. Scholars frequently refer it by its literary genre, creation myth─a neutral term that takes no position on accuracy or inspiration. Jews and Christians in varying degrees esteem the text as religious authority while interpreting it in a wide variety of ways. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
This makes a lot more sense than your previous version. However, I still find parts of it problematic. First of all, articles generally don't start off with "scholars frequently refer it by [...]" with no contrasting opinion. See WP:V: This kind of in-line attribution is what we typically do when the sources themselves are in conflict. If there's no conflict among reliable sources, we don't attribute - we just say. The wording you've suggested implies that there's something wrong or iffy with the term "creation myth". Now, I know that you feel that there is, but if you want to include this in the article (even by way of a vague implication) this needs to be substantiated by reliable sources. Do you have sources specifically saying that a notable amount of academics are opposed to labelling the Genesis account by the term "creation myth"?
The lead should say something about how the religions themselves view the creation account. But since opinions about "creation" really run the gamut there isn't much we can say except that it is interpreteted in a whole lot of ways, and listing the most prominent examples. I think your last sentence could be improved to clarify this point. Gabbe (talk) 07:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I very much appreciate this feedback, Gabbe. Thanks for taking the time to critique but also provide constructive suggestions. I have incorporated some in the proposal below. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


why was this article protected?

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

The page was previously under protection at the beginning of this debate. When that expired, History2007 and Afaprof quickly moved it to their version, and ran to ANI, insisting that the edit war was back in full swing, and it needed to be protected RIGHT NOW (as in, on their revision, which is demonstrably factually inaccurate). --King Öomie 20:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
King speaks with forked tongue. AFAprof made no such request. AFAprof01 21:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Forked tongue is a bit harsh. I stand corrected- you did not, in fact, post at Wikipedia:ANI#Protection request. I just sort of assumed based on your track record for agreeing whole-heartedly with History2007. --King Öomie 21:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this page is just a myth anyway... Maybe we are all dreaming.... This could not be reality.... This page is a myth.... History2007 (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
While I won't go as far as to say AFAprof01 is party to some sort of conspiracy with History2007 the evidence is pretty clear that he did change the contested content mid discussion and then History2007 shortly thereafter sought to have the article protected again [4] Nefariousski (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow.... what are you going to suggest next? That the Pope was in on the cospiracy too? Were any of the Swiss Guards involved by any chance? History2007 (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't "Suggest" anything. I made a completely unemotional and non accusatory statement based on facts which were cited and verifiable and beyond question. You took it personally and tried to undermine the issue at hand with nonesense. So... more or less business as usual for the past couple weeks here...

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

I'm going to suggest that you haven't made a single constructive post to this page in 24 hours. Nef just specifically said "No" to any mention of a conspiracy. --King Öomie 21:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so no Swiss Guards and no one on the Grassy Knoll. Great. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I did make one improvement at least, I corrected the use of "pure disinformation" in your post since you needed to have used an adjective, not an adverb. I had noticed those a few times... but what do I know... History2007 (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Additionally the accusations of gaming the RFC system didn't do a whole lot to help build consensus one way or another. Multiple guidelines and policies, factual accuracy and scholarly / academic sources support one side, appeals to sensitivity support the other. Nefariousski (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The accusation of vote stacking didn't help? Or the vote stacking itself? Ben (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Welcome to the side of this debate with a foot to stand on. --King Öomie 21:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
It's already hard enough to get certain editors to understand concepts like Proper Nouns, Wikipedia Policy, the concept of "context" and that sometimes words mean different things when combined with other words. While I appriciate and value additional comments let's try not to make too many inflammatory remarks. This pot does not need further sirring. Nefariousski (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
To wit, I've been staying away from the Science side, myself, as it's really not needed, and only serves to fuel the debate (as one more thing to misinterpret). As with any creation myth, science doesn't need to disprove it for it to BE a creation myth. --King Öomie 21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:FRINGE#Evaluating claims, we should not focus on the scientific inaccuracies in Genesis at all. However, what I'm saying is that the unintended consequences of not knowing what the definition of a term is and instead using a different definition align with the fact that the story contained in Genesis lacks basis in empirical fact (similar to the creation myths from other cultures and religions). So it seems to me that, perhaps unique among these sorts of arguments, the unintended consequence of calling this story a "creation myth" is actually a positive outcome in view of our goal to write an accurate and verifiable encyclopedia. Huzzah! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Nefariousski, which part of my remarks are inflammatory exactly? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The question at hand isn't one of "truth" since there is no doubt that this article will ever state that the story in Genesis is undenyably false (that's not the intent of the article). In fact the article shouldn't make any judgement regarding whether this particular (or any) Creation Myth is true or false. I just don't want this to turn into a proxy debate for evolution v. creationism since those articles do the job just fine on their own. The goal here is trying to reason with everyone to gain consensus that accurately describes the story in Genesis by its proper term as a Creation Myth and further polarizing the debate only pushes us further from that goal. Nefariousski (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
While I agree that the lack of scientific support for this particular creation myth is incidental to the article itself, the fact that the unintended consequence that those opposed to calling this story a "creation myth" are citing is actually in line with the self-same lack of scientific support should be viewed as a positive feature rather than a problem. I'm actually proposing that the people arguing against you are in fact giving another argument supporting plain language description of this story as a creation myth. I don't think that this is particularly inflammatory. Though I will admit that some people find facts to be upsetting, I don't think that pointing out those facts is inflammatory. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for being less than clear. I personally don't find your words inflammatory but I guarantee that there are those who will only further intrench and drag this out because they do. Furthermore we've done a good job of holding true to WP:RNPOV by expressly not making a judgement or veracity call one way or the other regarding this or any other Creation Myth and classifying them all the same as opposed to on their individual merits. Nefariousski (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't you mean "no chance" instead of "no doubt"? Just checkin.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 23:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I don't agree with criticism sections as a general rule. The waters, in my opinion, have been muddied by people trying to accommodate people who have demonstrable agendas which run counter to the goal of writing a verifiable, neutral, and well-sourced encyclopedia. Look at it this way: a bunch of editors are complaining that calling Genesis a "creation myth" without particular attribution might make readers think that Wikipedia is asserting that the literal account of Genesis is not true. The question I have is, "why is that a bad thing?" I'm not saying that this is automatically the interpretation one must take, but even considering these opponents at their word leads us to outcomes that we should be happy to have at a reliable, verifiable, and neutral encyclopedia like Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Trust me on this one, there has been no accomodation, the edits to the current language were completely unilateral just prior to page protection. Nefariousski (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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

A creation myth is by definition unfalsifiable. Science doesn't enter into it at all. So this is a pointless digression. Auntie E. (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Amen and thank you. History2007 (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
As a means for clarification for History2007, if someone says, "the Moon was formed after the Earth's oceans", that statement is false. If someone says, "the Earth's oceans formed after the Moon", that statement is true. Creation myths as a concept are unfalsifiable since the truth-value of the myth is not necessarily the interpretive value of the story. However, many literal statements about about natural history derived from this creation myth are false. There is no debate in the reliable sources over this fact. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but I am not as dumb as I would like to be. I know all that. History2007 (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Cool. Then I guess you are now convinced that since there are giant aspects of the story which are prima facie false, we shouldn't worry about readers coming away from the article with that impression. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:RNPOV very specifically states that we aren't to worry about people mistaking the formal meaning of a word for its colloquial meaning, so even outside the science argument, you are right the hell on. --King Öomie 19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Would that be "a scientific fact" or "an scientific" fact? But, logically speaking, it does have a truth value, although said value may not be in the set {true, false}. But don't let me get started on Multi-valued logic now... I could write predicates for ever... As an aside, the value it gets does not need to come from a three valued logic and just be "unknown" for there are multiple shades of decidability, indeterminacy, etc...., If you like, after all this is done, I can provide a correspondence course in formal logic for those interested.... But the long and short of it is: Auntie is right. Let us drop this. History2007 (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not feasible to scientifically disprove an unscientific, unfalsifiable claim. Thus, such ventures are fruitless. Nevertheless, the current weight of scientific evidence and thought stands diametrically opposed to the notion of a supernatural creator of ANY religion. --King Öomie 02:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the right word would be "possible" rather than feasible, given the rest of your sentence. History2007 (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
There's functionally no difference, unless you're of the opinion that the latter word grants more credibility to the religious standpoint (an opinion I soundly and firmly reject). --King Öomie 06:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually your majesty, they are not equivalent, in that "not feasible" includes the possibility of being possible, while "not possible" excludes the possibility of being feasible. And I think you meant "no functional difference" in the above since again, as I pointed out before, the use of an adverbs there was less than proper. By the way, is functional difference a new linguistic construct I need to learn about? Or did you mean "semantically equivalent"? Thank you and Long Live the King. History2007 (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing indeterminate about the fact, for example, that the Moon formed before the oceans. If people come away from this article thinking that the order of creation as described in the first few verses of Genesis is not true (which, I agree, is not the same thing as false, but then, the truth-value for a myth is actually "not true" rather than "false") then we've done them no disservice. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually the calculus of multi-valued truth values does not work that way. You are still thinking in a two valued format..... I guess the details will have to be provided later in my correspondence course on formal logic mentioned above..... Or you could read a book about it beforehand.... History2007 (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Your red herring about "multi-valued truth values" (which surely wins an award from the Department of Redundancy Department) does not have any bearing on the facts I pointed out. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The unfalsifiable claim I refer to is the notion of a supernatural being creating the heavens and earth over a period of a week. Obviously the specifics are open to scientific interpretation. --King Öomie 06:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
In a dumb Omphalos hypothesis sense, I guess that claim is unfalsifiable. But it certainly violates Ockham's razor, or, at the very least, is a Russell's teapot idealization that can be dismissed as a fairy tale in any case. Of course, there is plenty of scientific evidence that the heaven and earth did not come into existence over the period of a week. In that sense, the hypothesis can be falsified. But this is pure digression at this point. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually the evidence for the cosmos not having been created in a week can be dismissed using the same mechanisms with which all conspiracy theories dismiss facts. We only need to assume that an omnipotent being planted fake evidence to confuse us. (Sorry, I couldn't refrain from adding to this digression.) Hans Adler 23:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the point of Omphalos, certainly. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Is that a "God did it to test our faith", "The devil did it to tempt us", or a "God works in mysterious ways"? I never could understand which canned rebuttal applied where. Nefariousski (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Philip Henry Gosse, it seems, thought that the natural world just worked better with the appearance of age. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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

^This. Science-minded individuals had little interest in arguing against religious stories before their supporters began to shoehorn the religion into the science. --King Öomie 13:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Here are some 'popular' definitions of 'myth' according to Google and Bing:
  • an unproved or false collective belief
  • any invented story
  • an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
  • fiction, fantasy, talltale
  • e.g., urban myth
It surely is incorrect to say A myth is not "untrue". Some reasons why labeling a Bible passage that way without defining "myth" is so offensive to those for whom the Bible is sacred (like me). As a scientist and as a follower of Jesus Christ, I've never found the two incompatible. There are many interpretations of Genesis 1-2 besides literal.
Sadly, some who make such a sport out of guffawing a Creator God and his son Jesus Christ (who believed the Genesis Creation account) may find it a bit awkward to meet their Maker in a time of judgment. That's certainly a time one cannot say, "Get outta my way. YOU didn't make ME!" Even if you don't believe in and honor/respect the Creator God, why work so hard to offend those who do? Let's don't play games: that is what is going on here. In this life, it's each person's human right to decide for themselves what they believe. It's really sad when scoffers, some in the name of being "apologists," are so uncouth in making fun of believers, their personal faith, their Creator, and their Bible.
To label the Creation narratives "myth" without explanation is essentially saying the whole Bible is "myth," because the Genesis narratives are reaffirmed throughout the entire Bible—both Old and New Testaments. Just for the record, they are affirmed by Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew19:4 and Mark,10:6. Was he delusional? Those narratives are also affirmed in Gen 14:19; 14:22; Deut 32:6; Eccl 12:1; Isaiah 27:11, 40:28, 43:15; Rom 1:25; Col 3:10; 1 Pet 4:19, and others. —AFAprof01 (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
How about you try the exact same search with "Creation Myth" and come back to us with the definitions and citiations... Nobody is using the stand alone word "myth". Nor are we using it out of context or in a way that patently leads people to belive we're using it informally. Feel free to read my "The Electoral College is not an institute of higher learning just because it contains the word College" arguement above. Proper nouns have distinct definitions apart from their component nouns. As a "Scientist" I would expect you to understand that concept.
I seriously doubt "Divine Retribution" is a valid arguement against using the phrase Creation Myth. This is not the place to preach. You'll have much better luck here. Nefariousski (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually Afaprof, I think you are not going to get people on the other side of the table to change their minds by quoting from the New Testament. As for "why work so hard" they all have different reasons, but given that people are so passionate about it on both sides of the table means that the reasons are deeply buried in the respective mindsets and are unlikely to change. History2007 (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What is actually being disputed here?

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

Hello Auntie E.I do not object to "creation myth" being in the article—provided (a) that it is not placed in such a prominent place as the 3rd/4th words after the title; and (b) some explanation of what "creation myth" means as a literary genre, rather than allowing an assumption or suggestion that the use of "myth" implies a fantasy or fable. I've attempted to do that in my proposed first paragraph. —AFAprof01 (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
How is this creation myth not a fantasy or a fable exactly? Please provide a reliable source which shows that creation as accounted in Genesis is not a fantasy or fable. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • History2007, please, this is a serious conversation. Your sarcasm and cutesy terms in referring to others seem designed to provoke, and it's becoming difficult to take you seriously. Do you honestly wish for me to make seven suggestions for a lead sentence before you even tell me what you consider the facts to be? Really? I did add one proposed lead sentence which I thought I had added before (but didn't), with commentary. If you object, please tell me why, but in a straight man style. Auntie E. (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I was not asking you for 7 suggestions Auntie, but asked the general public, namely the 20,000 people a month who click on this page.[5] And it did help generate more suggestions. As for my being lectured on being cutesy, is it not unfair that you do not lecture those who use words like fool, crazy people and voodoo? That might suggest that you prefer some nephews to others. Is that not the definition of Nepotism in fact? In any case, thanks for making a suggestion. My initial proposed trade now just needs 3 more suggestions. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
(sorta off topic) That's not exactly 20k people per month – only that many visits. Also, by your reckoning, one could argue that only 2,000 people have actually been to this page this month (and even less the month before).[6]
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 04:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Is this an invitation for me to join the team of "Ben and the King"? Alas, I think we have fundamental differences on your use of adverbs to modify nouns (as pointed out in the posts above), so I would probably not fit into your team. Add to that my differing views on muli-valued truth values discussed above and I doubt we could have a fit. But I do thank you, your majesty, and Long Live the King. History2007 (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Gabbe, I do not know about AfaProf's preference but what I wonder is "why the lead has to be so telegraphic". Is there a shortage of keystrokes to expand it? Given the extreme brevity of this talk page, maybe... But more seriously, why can there be no statement in the lead that says what Jews and Christians have taught for centuries? That is a well referenced fact and clearly relevant to the book. Jewish and Christian "teachings" have included specific items about the Book of Genesis. The words to express that can be selected later, but why can there be no mention of that in the telegram, excuse me, I mean the lead? Would you like to make a suggestion to that effect Gabbe in the list above? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
You ask "why can there be no statement in the lead that says what Jews and Christians have taught for centuries?" Short answer is: Depending on what you mean by "what Jews and Christians have taught", that viewpoint might not be notable enough to warrant mention in this article's lead section. Gabbe (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with including an explanation of the term "creation myth", so long as it's short, unobtrusive and subtle. Making sure we don't offend creationist readers unnecessarily is OK. Doing it in an obvious way is not OK because it would give undue weight to creationism (and thereby offend readers who are not creationists). To quote from WP:UNDUE:
"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject."
The subject in this case is the biblical creation myth as a text. Creationism is significant enough in this context to get its own section, but not enough to shape the first lead of the article in any significant way other than by its being mentioned. Hans Adler 08:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually Hans, I was not referring to the modern concept of creationism as defined in Wikipedia. I was referring to centuries of Jewish and Christian "teachings" before creationism became well defined as a "side" in the debate against science. Creationism seems to include specific rejections of biology etc. while said teachings existed before biology was defined as a branch of science. History2007 (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is it relevant that these "teachings" that you vaguely refer to predate biology as a branch of science? Gabbe (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I am fully aware of the fact that until some time in the 19th century most western scientists took the biblical creation myth for granted as a historical account. This is just one of countless misconceptions that were once current in the academic community and have been revised. These obsolete misconceptions don't shape how reliable sources write about these subjects now, and they don't shape how Wikipedia writes about these subjects. E.g. the anachronistic proponents of humorism have no influence at all on the lead of myocardial infarction, as you can easily verify. Hans Adler 09:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
History2007 refers to the medieval scholarly mainstream. Medieval scholarship is indeed a venerable encyclopedic topic in its own right, but Wikipedia does not accept medieval scholarship as expert opinion to be juxtaposed controversially with modern scholarship. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually dab my goal was not to encourage medieval scholarship, but to reduce the "contempt for religion" tone that permeates this talk page (e.g. via the use of words and phrases such as "crazy people", "voodoo", "nonsense", etc.) The Captain & Tennille team has used the word "fool" to refer to a humble soul like myself more than once, and the local representative of the German state seems to like the word "crazy people". This has then been reflected in the attempts to craft a lead that in the name of scholarship denigrates the Book of Genesis. The decorative reasoning provided quotes science, policy, etc. They have not used global warning as an excuse yet, but give them time.... But the tone is unmistakable. If you have a solution, please make a suggestion in the list of suggested paragraphs above. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Please stop blanking the default section-linked edit summary when you post. This page is close 150k- it's extremely inconvenient to not even be able to tell what SECTION you're posting in. I brought this up on your talk page, but you opted instead to blank the section with no response. --King Öomie 15:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Correction- closer to 250k. --King Öomie 15:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
To your comment: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Creation Myth is NOT a value judgement, so there is NO 'denigration'. The issue here is that you're intent on replacing a neutral value-statement with a POSITIVE one, in the name of "npov". Kind of reminds me of the attitude over at Conservapedia- if it doesn't actively promote Jesus, it might as well be satanism. --King Öomie 15:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
it may imply a value judgement. As in, a high value, as opposed to, say, "Creation according to Genesis is an item of US Bible Belt folklore". --dab (𒁳) 20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
to History2007, you appear to think that the current lead section "denigrates the Book of Genesis". If you wish us to take this for anything other than an idle personal sentiment, please substantiate this opinion, preferably based on quotable sources. In my opinion, the 25 centuries old Hebrew text is denigrated by people who attempt to abuse it for petty squabbles of religious ideology of the 21st century. This is a venerable, encyclopedic piece of Iron Age literature and I resent the attempt to smuggle items of current affairs into its discussion. --dab (𒁳) 20:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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

What is actually agreed upon here?

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

  • This article is about the the text found in the first two chapters of a specific book. I think that is obviously true. That book is Genesis.
  • Most (if not almost all) modern scholars label it with the technical term "creation myth". I think that is not 100% agreed upon, but is probably true (although I have not done a survey of all scholars) and is certainly well referenced.
  • Several people have agreed to include a definition of "creation myth" along with a hyperlink.
  • As Auntie first stated and many others agreed thereafter, creation myths are in general not falsifiable. That is logically true and also agreed upon above.
  • Some IP will come out of nowhere in 18 months and change a lot of this anyway.

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

  • People other than scholars label this story as a creation myth as well including some people who profess belief in the story.
  • Commentators generally acknowledge that there are two distinct myths that can be distinguished from close analysis of the ancient Hebrew text.
  • There are parallels and distinctions that can be made between this creation myth and others written in similar time periods in nearby locations.
  • Certain claims derived from literal interpretations of the text (for example, the claim that the oceans were formed before the Moon) are directly contradicted by scientific evidence. However, this fact may not necessarily be relevant to the lead section.

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

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

Perhaps I should make it clear that I meant "what has been agreed upon here so far". So whatever may be debated and agreed upon separately in the future is another issue. E.g. I am not sure oceans have been discussed at length here. I am trying to make a list of items that already have consensus among those debating here. I still see these items as the ones I started with. Are there any others that have clear consensus among the editors here? History2007 (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
If you have issues with any of the statements I think are uncontroversial and I think generally have consensus, please let them be known. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you agree with them. According to our consensus ideals, it is not necessary to have an endless debate to establish consensus. Some proposals are simply things that are uncontroversial enough that the consensus of reasonable editors is to agree with them. I believe my proposed additions to the list are perfectly fine in that regard and I submit they all represent clear and unambiguous consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually I did not see any items that "I" would call error prone in most of your list Apologist, but I do not see some of them discussed here. But I do see some of your items as diving into way too much detail right now. My goal was to come up with a list of top level items which would form the basis of a consensus. Adding detail will make the debate go into 2012. History2007 (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
If there is nothing you disagree with in my list, then I think we're okay. Let's wait for someone to object for real rather than just as a hypothetical exercise. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I would not rubber stamp it, but as I said it has too much detail, and there are a couple of things I do not agree on, but not big deals. History2007 (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, if you're not willing to point out the specific details with which you disagree, then there is no actionable objection to the list and we have consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Whether you call this a "creation myth" has nothing to do with whether you are a Christian or Jew, but whether you happen to understand the concept of creation myth. The people driving this "discussion" consistently fail to make clear what they think is the problem. The current reading of the lead, "This text is regarded as a religious account of creation by Christians and Jews and as a creation myth by scholars" is utter nonsense and flies in the face of the established revision. Everybody considers this "a religious account of creation", that is what a creation myth is for crying out loud. The suggestion that there is a dichotomy between Christians and Jews on one hand and scholars on the other is uttrerly ridiculous. The implication being that you cannot be educated and religious at the same time. The suggestion that there is a dichotomy between "religious account of creation" and "creation myth" is even more ridiculous. This entire exercise is a disgrace. --dab (𒁳) 12:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Unprotecting?

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

It will quickly lead into a revert cycle that is best avoided. One may say, "so let them get blocked", but inciting revert cycles is not a good idea. History2007 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure neverending discussions are such a good idea either. Sure, it stops the edit war for the time being, but if people are using that time to grandstand, name-call, etc. instead of actually debating, the protection has lost its purpose. Gabbe (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I may be simplistic, but I have a feeling that "list making" as suggested above will lead to consensus sooner rather than later. And that may buy stability for 12-18 months or so. I have not seen major additions to "the agreed upon list" so far. Can you see other items? History2007 (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow you. What do you mean by "major additions to 'the agreed upon list'"? Is it this list you're refering to? I count seven suggestions there. Gabbe (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Current agreements/options and move to consensus

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

First, the agreements:

  • Agreement1: Everyone agrees (reluctantly or otherwise) with the use of the term creation myth. There is no longer the need for "any debate" on that.
  • Agreement2: Everyone agrees that this article is about (or refers to, etc.) the Book of Genesis. There is no longer the need for "any debate" on that.

Next, the variations:

  • Option1: The lead first mentions the term creation myth, then the Book of Genesis.
  • Option2: The lead first mentions the Book of Genesis, then the term creation myth.

Next, the definition variation:

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

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

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

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

History2007, this is a very well-done analysis and systhesis. I for one appreciate it. —AFAprof01 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
At this point, I think the correct thing to do is revert back to the version that this page had before the December edit wars and then move forward with proposed revisions rather than trying to decie between different options. That's the easiest way forward. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
That would almost certainly restart the February edit wars. Why avoid a discussion of consensus? History2007 (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
After your warring to the current revision, and subsequent protection request, I find your protest disingenuous. --King Öomie 14:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually I have only done 3 edits to this article ever, one of which was a typo fix. So I have edited this article only twice, a few days apart. But I would like to add art later. History2007 (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
We can ask an administrator to enforce an article parole on this page to prevent the edit wars. It shouldn't be too hard. I really encourage rolling back to the last stable version and moving forward slowly. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so you have made your preference clear. Let us see why anyone else wants or does not want to achieve or discuss consensus. History2007 (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Discussion can continue, but in the absence of the threat of an edit war, this page shouldn't be full-protected. I'd suggest downgrading to semi-protection. --King Öomie 15:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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

You've been fairly impartial. dab has spoken up. Personally, as long as they're backed by policy, I don't care how involved an admin is when they take action. Obviously there are exceptions, like wikistalking to find an excuse to block someone they disagree with. Alright, so, backed by policy and abiding by WP:DICK :P --King Öomie 15:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I was the editor who originally complained about the edit warring and 3RR violation here, which resulted in the current page protection. I'd support unprotect and 1RR at this point. I'm also an admin, but I've been active in the talk page discussion. Since unprotected is the preferred stautus and 1RR is still quite restrictive, I think it would be acceptable for one of you to make the change after notifying the original admin who protected the page.--agr (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Additionally I'd like to ask that we consider adding a FAQ box to the top of this talk page So that we don't end up having to rehash this whole discussion every couple of weeks when a new group of editors come across the page. Nefariousski (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
An ounce of prevention, certainly- but as I said above, it would likely not have much of an affect. WT:SIG is a testament to people ignoring the hell out of edit notices- and people will ignore just about anything to stay offended when religion is in play. Nonetheless, draft it and post it, you'll receive no complaint from me. --King Öomie 17:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not assuming it's going to quell anyone's feelings of righteous indignation. I'd just rather have it available so when responding to tired arguements editors can just post "Read the FAQ, section blah blah blah". Not to mention those more biblically learned cound contribute to the FAQ regarding the actual topic of Genesis so that the FAQ could benefit those actually coming to this article to read about the Creation Myth and it's various interpretations and messages. Nefariousski (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with reverting the article backward to anything. Let's work with what we have.
Recommend that we do not remove protection until we have selected a single paragraph which a clear majority accept. It's unlikely that unanimity is possible. Then, let's ask an uninvolved SysOp to substitute that paragraph in the article and then change to semi-protection (registered users only). —AFAprof01 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the AfaProf strategy. Going backwards would only result in an attempt to remake an online version of Back to the Future. I think there have been enough remakes of that movie. History2007 (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
"What we have" is a logic rubiks cube. Let's NOT work with that. Either you read it, understand the meaning and become confused as to why anyone would phrase it that way, or you DON'T understand they're the same and get the wrong impression of religious people, scholars, or both.
"A bicycle, known to riders as a two-wheeled transportation device[1][2][3], and to engineers as a transportation device with two wheels[4][5][6][7], is a self-propelled vehicle utilizing two wheels for locomotion[8]." Yes, surely this is the best starting point. --King Öomie 19:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
We can't give Undue weight to terms or phrases that don't have formal definitions. Colloquial terms used by a single group of people don't warrant equal footing to broadly used formal academic terms. We don't put the word "Jesus Horse" in the article about Dinosaurs just because some people believe that Dinosaurs existed along side mankind[7] and are offended at stating the fact that they went extinct millions of years before mankind came to be[8]. Nefariousski (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • A revision of earlier #2, taking into account some suggestions and criticism:
2 Creation according to Genesis refers to the account of creation found in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. Scholars frequently refer it by its literary genre, creation myth—a neutral term that takes no position on accuracy or inspiration. Jews and Christians in varying degrees esteem the text as religious authority while interpreting it in a wide variety of ways. —AFAprof01 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
As has been pointed out, 'myth' to some implies inaccuracy and uninspired by a divinity. The literal—allegorical controversy among adherents represents a huge chasm. IMO, we are doing a great service to the large remainder of the article to make it "perfectly clear" (with apologies to R. Nixon) that the article is committed to neutrality, that myth doesn't imply real or imaginary, that the article takes no position on the wide range of interpretations of the passage. Hopefully, then, it will be accepted without defensiveness on anyone's part. The fact that we (collectively) have worked VERY hard to desensitize the lede is "proof pudding" that we editors are committed to go out of our way, when necessary, to "stick to just the facts" (another apology to the original Dragnet).
PERSONAL NOTE: To the extent that I have offended some of you personally, I humbly apologize. One of my many human frailties is that when I perceive personal attack, I get defensive. That's not appropriate here. I sincerely regret my errors. —AFAprof01 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
"As has been pointed out, 'myth' to some implies inaccuracy and uninspired by a divinity."
WP:RNPOV makes it clear that we are to completely ignore this. As a general request to you, Bugs, History, Til, etc, PLEASE stop bringing this issue up. A wikilink should be sufficient to point confused readers on their way- your inline definition (or disclaimer, from the look of it) is superfluous. To wit, WP:NDA. --King Öomie 20:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Refers to

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

7 days of Creation

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

Consensus proposal (moving forward)

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

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

Not so fast - the discussion has taken place for a very short period of time and still continues. History2007 (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
We can continue to discuss even while we remove protection, revert, institute 1RR, and follow WP:BRD. These are not mutually exclusive events, but it is clear to me you and Afaprof01 are in the minority and, sadly, sometimes the minority must get out of the way so that we can move on. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I endorse this motion with the fiery approval of a million suns. --King Öomie 21:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
King, I got from you the idea of reworking my proposed paragraph (above). I would appreciate feedback on New Option 2 before we unprotect. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Too wordy. The long 'myth' explanation could be covered by "(formally myth)" as per my suggestion option 4. rossnixon 01:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Prof, I bet you a nickle to a doughnut they will not buy that. History2007 (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I don't think anyone is opposed to civil discourse and feedback on any of the proposals. Nefariousski (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Just reconfirming per the first comment. Ben (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Whoa there, are you sure that's the right version you are linking to? I'm not going to agree to a version that censors the words "creation myth". I think the clear majority find this edition closer to the mark. Auntie E. (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I second that. Although I would personally prefer one of the early January versions that doesn't have the comparison to the Koran in the second sentance since it seems a little misplaced in an intro. Nefariousski (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm just echoing what dab suggested. I figured after we restored the new version we could work in new versions of the lead. I'm fine with Auntie E.'s version or with Nefariousski's version, so don't let me stand in your way! ScienceApologist (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this version, and not with this version. I would very strongly oppose the latter. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
So being that pretty clear consensus has been built around what revision to start with has been established without any dissent for the past day why don't we roll back to said version already? Nefariousski (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

— Clark Pinnock

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

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

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

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

The Pinnock quotes is interesting, and in my view could be included somewhere in the article, perhaps even in the lead. The comparison between "Genesis creation myth" and "Christ myth theory" merits a lengthier response. I think the most meaningful difference is the level of acceptance among experts. While most historians are in a consensus opinion that Jesus was a historical person with an actual, literal existance (with a slight minority of the opinion that he was merely a literary character), the opinion among experts regarding the creation account in Genesis is the opposite. With Genesis, most are of the opinion that it is a not a literal account of an historical phenomenon, but a literary device meant to explain how the world came about. What I mean to say is, it would be undue weight for us to claim that Jesus did not literally exist, but it would not be undue weight to imply that Genesis is not to be read literally. The latter is not the same as saying that "Genesis is false".
The term "Christ myth theory" is used to describe the theory that Christ is a mere literary character, rather than a literally existing factual and historical individual. This theory is not widely held to be true. The term "Genesis creation myth" is used to describe an account that is widely regarded (among scientists, theologians, biblical scholars, etc.) to be more literary than literal. Gabbe (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I wrote it based on what seemed to be consensual attitudes on that day. - Afaprof01 Laughable at best, and in more ways than one. Anyway, since ScienceApologist's original post seems consistent with the responses here, I'll put in a request that this be carried through. Cheers, Ben (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Version restored. For the sake of a few hours I don't think it's worth removing the protection. Please continue to discuss things on the talk page after the protection expires. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I think that "creation myth" is the best wording for two reasons. First, because it is the literary genre of the work, and thus is important for the same reason that it's important that Stranger in a Strange Land is identified in the lede as as science fiction novel. And the reason I think that's important (besides clearly locating the work within its genre) is that it allows for the link to our article on Creation myths, so readers can link to similar works from other traditions- that will be very useful for readers using this article for research or curiosity. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. There have been about 3 pages written so far about why it is inappropriate to split scholars and the religious on this issue, as there is no real separation. --King Öomie 21:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
First, it does not have to parallel science fiction novel. It has been pointed out many times that the characterization of Genesis 1-3 as a “mythic” text can make some people uneasy. This is largely due to the fact that in our American culture, “myth” has become synonymous with “not true,” according to theologian, apologist and author Clark Pinnock. We should have two objectives here: 1) be NPOV, 2) state facts correctly. It has been pointed out that Wiki is not seeking "truth," but "facts." What does it hurt to use a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down, à la Mary Poppins? ─AFAprof01 (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Both of your points, 1 and 2, are already satisfied. You're asking us to bias this article in favour of American culture, but that is greatly frowned upon. Ben (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
In any case, 'myth' means the same thing in the US. My middle-school students have some of the same questions when I talk about creation myths, and I tell them, "a myth is a story that people somewhere, sometime, believed was true, and that tries to explain why the world is the way it is. Whether it's true or not is not even important." My 12-year-old students understand this, and so do most Christian and Jewish people- even in America. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Afaprof01: I think you are absolutely correct in that using the term "creation myth" we are bound to make some people uneasy, just like Pinnock says. And I also think Pinnock could be an appropriate and academic source for citing something in the article (perhaps even in the lead) to the effect "usage of the term myth makes some uneasy" or something more properly worded. But that is not, by itself, a sufficient justification for not using the term. WP:RNPOV (part of WP:NPOV) expliticly says that "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." Gabbe (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Afa, I have, personally, just me, quoted that portion of RNPOV directly at your text digestion apparatus AT LEAST five times. It specifically outlines why your concerns are irrelevant. Why do you continue to bring them up? I would point you to WP:ICANTHEARYOU. --King Öomie 00:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
One person's spoonful of sugar is another person's spoonful of crap. Using kiddie gloves to touch the subject of Genesis while using the sometimes harsh gloves of reality for all other faiths makes the adherents of Christianity and Judaism warm and fuzzy and just riles everyone else. That's the whole point of WP:WTA#Myth and Legend and WP:RNPOV. That's not to use the old adage "You can't please everyone all the time but you sure can piss them all off at once" but more along the lines of not taking a particular stance that favors any one belief over another in the interest of maintaining integrity. We (editors of Wikipedia) have policies and guidelines to refer to in the case of disputes such as this and we have to err on the side of policy, that's just the cost of doing business here. Nefariousski (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant, you got it. The approach suggested plays no favorites - treats Christians, Jews, Egyptians, you name it, the same way... Brilliant. Reminds me of: [9]..... History2007 (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Break #993,840

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

The problem is that is an encyclopedia for 'ordinary' people; not for academia. You should "write for your intended audience", therefore the common usage/meaning of words is normally expected. rossnixon 01:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Entirely wrong. Everything in that statement goes against policy. You're talking about a complete rewrite of something like a dozen policies and style guides. Coming back to the OTHER oft-repeated, oft-ignored point- if you disagree with policy, THERE ALREADY EXISTS A FORUM TO VOICE YOUR CONCERNS- and it is not this page. --King Öomie 01:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Can I please bring Book of Genesis and its recent edit history to the attention of editors here. Sorry for the off topic comment, but I figure most people here are already familiar with the issue. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

This is irrelevant here - the term creation myth is not jargon. Ben (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it is jargon, and I submit it plainly is, the guideline says "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible." That means explaining terms they may be unfamiliar with, or worse, may misunderstand as pejorative when they are not. "It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to explain the subject fully." Why are you so resistant to clarifying the meaning of creation myth when it is first used?--agr (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, clarifying what "creation myth" means in the lead sentence is part of the proposal Ben made above. Gabbe (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
"...may misunderstand as perjorat-" RNPOV says "Be quiet". I'm tired of this debunked argument. --King Öomie 13:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
RNPOV says the exact opposite: "Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." Words to avoid, which RNPOV links to, goes on to say "When using myth in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally..." All I am saying is that we should word the introduction to make it clear that creation myth is being used in a non-pejorative sense. If others can agree to that perhaps we can move on and end this drama.--agr (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
And what kind of introduction do you suggest? --King Öomie 15:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Arnold, do you not agree that establishing a religious context makes it clear that the term creation myth is being used in a non-pejorative sense and that this establishment then satisfies RNPOV? In the same way that establishing a scientific context makes it clear how the term theory is being used in any number of articles? I'm not opposed to making it clear what the term means by establishing context, and I believe the current intro does this, I'm just opposed to making it clear what the term means by forcing a dictionary definition where it doesn't belong (for the record, I would oppose the same technique to disambiguate theory). After all, there is a little bit more to writing well than being unambiguous, and repetition for the sake of disambiguating something that is already unambiguous in a religious context is not.
If a dictionary definition can be naturally introduced into the lead then I'm all for it. As Gabbe noted, I've offered a suggestion on how this can be done in the first sentence. I don't know of any other way this can be done in the first sentence, but to echo King Öomie, suggestions are welcomed. Cheers, Ben (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Nitpicking- Evolution is a special case, as it's not necessarily a 'theory', until you start talking about the 'theory of evolution'. See Evolution as theory and fact. So it's not really fair to say it 'avoids' the term until the fourth paragraph. Sort of like claiming that Bible skirts around its connection to Jesus until the sixth paragraph- while a significant part, that's not all the book is about. --King Öomie 16:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Sanctity of marriage nonsense removed. --King Öomie 16:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) C'mon Arnold, you must see the parallel here.
I don't agree that establishing a scientific context makes it clear that the term physical theory is being used in a non-pejorative sense.
I think "myth" is a good model here. In situations where there is potential controversy, our articles make an effort to provide context. Creation according to Genesis uses the term "creation myth," which it links to creation myth.
If that reasoning was given by an editor of special relativity in the hopes of shuffling off the highly relevant term theory to later parts of the intro, even though it was preceded by the the word physical, would you be convinced? And the evolution article isn't about a theory, so that term doesn't belong in the introductory sentence. I stand by what I've been saying all along: The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?". In our case, the subject is a creation myth, and it's notable since it's a part of the Hebrew Bible. Cheers, Ben (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
My point was that Special Relativity attempts to put the word theory in context by adding additional text, it doesn't just link to theory, which would be the parallel to our treatment of creation myth. And evolution, as discussed in our article, is certainly a theory. Earlier versions said so in the second sentence for many years. e.g. "Often the word evolution is used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection." Evolution then evolved. In any case, I made a suggestion as requested. I'd really appreciate comments on that.--agr (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The Theory of Evolution is a theory. Evolution is not. It has been shown beyond all reasonable doubt that life undergoes iterative changes. Said theory is an attempt to explain WHY and HOW. Compare and contrast Gravity (elementary knowledge), and the Theory of Gravity (theoretical physics).
Your suggestion doesn't actually posit a new lede. What happens to the first sentence when we move Creation Myth away? We go back to calling the subject an 'account'? --King Öomie 19:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest something like "The first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book in the Hebrew Bible, describe the creation of the world and the first man and woman. Many modern Bible scholars say the text combines two distinct creation myths, while more traditional interpreters dispute this." (I'd drop the summary paragraph in the intro, by the way. I fixed the chapter division stuff after King deleted the sanctity of marriage sentence, so it's better, but I still find it too interpretive and unnecessary. We have a summary in the body of the article and the original text is only a couple of pages.)--19:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Encyclopædia Britannica.
  2. ^ Encyclopædia Britannica.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative/Archive_5&oldid=1156771494"