Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:52, 25 February 2012

Template:Pbneutral

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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

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

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

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

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bible Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mythology Top‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Scholarly consensus and other POVs

Frankly, after all the above chatter and subsequent edits to find consensus, the result as I read it has been a loss of perspicuity and cogency. The lede is too long and detailed as it stands. It needs to set out a straightforward and clear overview of the topic which reflects the scholarly consensus of the topic. Further nuance that currently invades the lead should be left for the body. In my view, the earlier version that simply set out how scholars understand the construction and origins of genesis was much better. Finally, I might observe that overly long leads that start to lose themselves in this kind of detail, scream edit war and turn off readers interested in basic information about the topic. So in the ened, editors fight amongst themselves whilst sending readers scurrying elsewhere. Eusebeus (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Scholarly consensus is simply one POV and we can't be biased to one view over another on this topic. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not how NPOV works Gorlitz. NPOV means that we do, by definition, bias ourselves toward the scholarly consensus.Farsight001 (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If we're going to have a note (and this is one thing I actually did propose first, and was argued out of seeing the necessity of it above), the current revision paraphrasing the Encyclopaedia Brittanica is fine. No objections. BTW, I did like whoever had the essay of religious writings in their userspace - but my personal sympathies, if they don't align with academic consensus, can have no bearing on your, my, or his edits to Misplaced Pages. St John Chrysostom /_my bias 22:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Two comments:

1. @Farsight001 "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." So that means if only academic sources are represented, then it's POV. That is how how NPOV works.
2. The current note does meet my objections with leaving the phrase bare, although the mechanism of tracing the note may result in problems for some, but that should not be our concern. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Actual question (don't bite): "I am not aware of a scholarly, academic source which suspects that Genesis is a historical account outside of (perhaps) Christian/Jewish/Muslim theology...": this kind of idea (that Genesis is historical in some sense) is present in many, if not most, published sources (as are most influenced by Jewish or Christian theology to some degree, including virtually every ref given in the article), even if they are not by men who are considered the greatest exegetes alive (like Brown, Luke Timothy Johnson, Sarna, Brueggemann, Carson, Wenham, etc., etc.): doesn't WP:WEIGHT necessitate including it somewhere in the article (a note seems like a better place than the body of the article to me, but even sections on "Genesis in Theology - Religion X", due to the fact that more than 50% of people alive are adherents of one of those religions? (I'm going to take a random guess and say about 20% of people are literal believers in them, given the polls I've seen over the years where even 22-26% of Brits and Americans held geocentrism to be true.) This must be balanced with the top-echelon scholarly consensus (as is presented properly in the lead, with all major scholarly viewpoints represented proportionately to their prevalence per word) as well, though, so (thinking aloud) I do not believe it is valid to include such (even if widely published, as they are views not held by the top echelon of exegetes) in the body of the article itself; we don't make 25% of the article on the solar system about Ptolemaic system because 25% of people don't know any better. Essentially, how do we determine weight? Is it depending solely on those sources judged to be superior, or depending on all mainstream published sources?

As a note, I do believe Genesis 1 to be history, as do many of these quoted scholars - of course it's not history in the modern sense (that is, scientific history), which wasn't even a glimmer in the mind of any man until Gibbon wrote The Decline and Fall. For comparison, I'm assuming at least one of you have read Livy: do you think the Roman standard-bearers actually threw the golden eagle in to the ranks of the enemy whenever the tide of battle was turning, so that the legions would be ashamed, rush the enemy to catch up with the standard and rout them, or is it a symbolic motif? The "days of creation" are much like "throwing the standard" in Livy: it's history, but not history in the sense we've used the term since the Enlightenment. If I've expressed myself poorly, I apologize. St John Chrysostom /_my bias 22:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Does something like this satisfy those objectors to the current note? (Note, that I do believe the current note to be fully acceptable): "'Creation myth' is used in this article in the academic sense defined in the Encyclopedia Britannica: a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it. It implies no judgment on the religious truth-value of what is thus described. See article creation myth for further details."? St John Chrysostom /_my bias 22:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It addresses most, if not all, of the concerns raised to date. As such I think it would be acceptable. I would like direct input from Zenkai251 as he (assuming male-ness) started this discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me too. I do doubt that our literalist readers will stop to consider what it means, let alone follow the link, but at least it will be there and we can refer them to it. PiCo (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I very much disagree with including wording which discusses, in any sense, the 'truth' of Genesis. That is not our job, and by saying "this doesn't mean Genesis is false", we directly imply that it may be true, which is entirely unwarranted. As an academic encyclopedia, must be impartial to the topic. John, I read through your comment, and I'm absolutely amazed by some of it; you went so far as to say that the idea Genesis is true appears in "most published sources". That's nonsense. My intention is not to be uncivil or uncollaborative, but to convey the depth of my amazement that other editors are agreeing with that kind of sentiment. We can't be basing content issues on random guesses about the number of people who might believe something, which appears to be one of the prime arguments for this wording. I'd like to stress, again, that controversial articles get these kinds of drive-by complaints all the time. We cannot compromise neutrality by making claims about the historical validity of Genesis just to appease those editors. Providing the definition of creation myth in the note is plain and obvious without associated neutrality/scope concerns. If an editor can't read or understand that note, the correct response is to direct them to the article, and to the ample references we have for the term.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I like John's wording. It's much better than the current wording. I say go ahead and make the change. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Mann Jess, you misunderstand me: I said (or meant to say, as I apologized in advance for being unclear) that in most published sources, Genesis is held to be true in some sense or to contain history in some sense - it's hardly ever held to be literally true, nor narrative history, but it is held to contain truth, although generally in a symbolic manner (e.g. the many interpretations of the story of the fall, which never include an apple; the statements about Gen 1 being about God's providence or majesty in the lead, and the interpretation of creation as manifesting the author's intention of demonstrating the dependence of everything on God : it is held to contain this sort of symbolic history/myth/"timeless truth", not literal truth of narrative history:). I said, "of course it's not history in the modern sense (that is, scientific history)", and directly compared it to (fictional) symbolic motifs in Livy (specifically, the recurring throwing of the Eagle standard in to enemy ranks). Many (most) of these sources call it symbolic history (Brueggemann, Wenham) or myth (which are essentially the same thing, according to the definition given: "a symbolic account of..."). In that sense, "history" no more implies "certain, narrative truth regarding the past" than does "myth" imply "certain, narrative falsehood regarding the past".

I believe most other editors are agreeing because they were able to muddle their way through my unclear prose: if they took it the way you have, I would disagree with it myself! I added "religious truth" to my proposed wording to make it clear that it had nothing to do with its historical truth-value one way or the other. As I said, I am content with the note the way it is (or with no note at all), but, echoing PiCo above, spoke in the hope that it will stabilize the first sentence of the article, and will be an acceptable wording to those two or three editors still objecting.

I will hold for at least a bit more discussion before I make the proposed change (including a reply from you to my hopefully-clarified statement) due to your objection. St John Chrysostom /_my bias 01:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and the random guesses of numbers had nothing to do with the wording - they were a completely separate post, a thinking-aloud sort of musing on, "should there be sections or articles such as 'Genesis in Theology - Religion X'", along with addressing the views of other posters raised about N/POV. (The three comments had, I believe, seven trains of thought between them.) As regards to the other posters, if you read the entirety of the comment, you'll see that I conclude, "no, I don't think it's legitimate to add such in , seeing how we don't give 25% of the article on solar system over to Ptolemaic views". I'm not a journalist: the little writing I do is extremely complex prose narrative, and some philosophy and theology (which has to be copy-edited before it's fit for publication, and also gives rise to my incessant need to qualify every statement, which you overlooked): I have to try to keep my length down and intelligibility up when I write, as demonstrated by giving rise to misunderstanding in an obviously intelligent editor.

As Cicero said, and I must on Misplaced Pages aspire to: “When you wish to speak, be concise; that the minds of men take in quickly what you say, learn it, and retain it correctly. Every word that is superfluous only pours over the side of a brimming mind.” St John Chrysostom /_my bias 03:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As Cicero should have said: "Keep it simple!" PiCo (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Stupid! It's ironic that I never noticed that Cicero's rhetoric is the antithesis of what he's preaching in that snippet, and I simplified it significantly by quoting from memory. I'm more like Cicero does (however much less eloquent) and less as Cicero preaches. St John Chrysostom /_my bias 12:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This remark above to my comment, Scholarly consensus is simply one POV and we can't be biased to one view over another on this topic is astonishing from someone who wishes to contribute to an encyclopedic treatment of a topic. By this logic, we should go to every single article that makes reference to an event or development more than 6,000 years old and qualify it based on the extant views of some who argue, in published sources, that God created the Heavens and the Earth 6,000 years ago. Like Mastodons. Or Quasars. It is so mind-bogglingly indefensible, so astonishingly wrong, that I cannot even think how to respond other than to suggest the editor seriously consider how he or she thinks an encyclopedia should be written if scholarly consensus is not to be considered authoritative in the construction and dissemination of knowledge. I mean, really? I cannot believe that was actually written down and saved. Maybe you should try Conservapedia, where the view that reality has a well-known liberal bias is warmly endorsed. Eusebeus (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, I think Misplaced Pages already makes far too many concessions to extreme, minority pseudo-scientific views Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your position is so mind-bogglingly indefensible that it astounds me. We're not talking about nut-jobs but "orthodox" authors. The issue is simple: there was a split in scholarship starting around 150 years ago. We are only reflecting one branch.

Just a side point, since "scholarship" places the writing of Genesis to 600 BC, not sure how you got your number of 6000 years ago. Even if we take it to be Moses, the earliest dates place it around 1200 BC. Only if you consider it to be an oral tradition could you give it such an early date. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right, Görlitz, my apologies. I was labouring under the delusional belief that you had written "scholarly consensus", i.e. what the scholarship agrees upon, is simply - simply, nice - one POV. Eusebeus (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sarcasm. How quaint and perfectly dismissive. You continue to labour under the assumption that Misplaced Pages is based on scholarly consensus when it fact it is based on reliable sources of which scholarly consensus makes up only a small portion. "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view)." Please notice the emphasis on "significant minority views". There are many other things that Misplaced Pages is not but I'll let you discover those things. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Good grief: "...reliable sources of which scholarly consensus makes up only a small portion...." You are actually doubling down on your remark? The sheer inanity of declaring that scholarly consensus represents simply one POV and a small portion of what should be considered reliably sourced information beggars belief and would have devastating consequences for any exercise that is about the promotion of knowledge. Is it really your view that encyclopedic treatment of a topic should consider scholarly consensus as simply a small portion of the overall "reliable" material that should be provided? If so, I fear the legitimacy and integrity of your participation in what is after all an exercise about disseminating knowledge can and should be rightfully called into serious doubt. Eusebeus (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

−

Are you able to elaborate on what the "significant minority views" are and provide reliable sources for them, just so we all know what we might be discussing? Thank you.Theroadislong (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

@Eusebeus - Please drop your attitude. The inanity of your assumption that only scholarly consensus should be considered is the reason for my statement. Perhaps small portion is hyperbole and it should simply read "portion". I would even recast it a large portion of the discussion, but it's not the only opinion that should be discussed.

@ Theroadislong - You realize, of course, that that phrase is from WP:RS. I'll leave it up to discussion, and some has been offered. However, to exclude anything that doesn't agree with scholarly consensus simply because it doesn't agree with it is WP:POV. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales says "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" It would be helpful to us all if you did otherwise we don't know what we are discussing? Kind regardsTheroadislong (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Is it possible to spin these last comments off in to a new section so Mann Jess doesn't get lost, confused, or just completely disregard due to information overload and inanity my request for her input above, about the consensus for the change of wording in the note? Please refer to WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, and WP:WIKILAWYER in their entirety. The last half score comments have been the same thing, reworded, and the same objection, reworded. St John Chrysostom /_my bias 18:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The inglorious spectacle of two long-time Wikipedians having their little talk page tantrum throwing around elementary links and engaging in high-minded posturing would normally be grounds for nesting the exchange. but in this case, as Theroadislong has asked a pertinent question, then it might as well stay up to the mutual embarrassment no doubt of at least one, and maybe two editors who should have learned (along with what constitutes reliable sources and undue weight) better in 6 years. To answer your question, the note wording ("as used in britannica...") comes across to me (and probably me alone) as sounding amateurish, like the kind of thing one would find in a first year undergraduate essay, but not in an encyclopedia. Eusebeus (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is the fanatical, inane, extremist POV positions of editors like Eusebeus and Theroadislong that causes so much problems on WP. SmittysmithIII (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

We are ruining Misplaced Pages! Eusebeus (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Eusebeus, if you feel you are ruing Misplaced Pages, and if you care about it, you should stop editing it. However, when you push one POV, you are ruining it. I'm not asking for any one opinion any more weight than it's due, but to simply exclude it because it doesn't meet the "scholarly" criterion is not appropriate. I'm sorry you don't see that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

@John, things are already heated enough, and it seems we both agree that postulating on the number of Christians in the world and the number of refs they may have influenced doesn't help develop the article, or this note in particular. Let's just disagree on those points and concentrate on the note directly. It seems to me that everyone agrees that including a note using the def from creation myth is acceptable. A few editors seem to prefer adding additional wording to spell it out further - "this doesn't mean Genesis is false" - but that's garnered some objections. A few others, including me, prefer removing the note entirely, but that's garnered some objections. It seems that the note with the current wording (or a variation thereof) is the most agreeable solution to everyone. How about we keep that, and see how it fares? BTW, I agree with Eusebeus that the lead-in "...as used in Britannica..." is a bit much. Are we aware of any other definition for "creation myth"? If not, then simply defining it should be sufficient. I'd support trimming that, and maybe including a direct ref to Britannica instead.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, if we have too many objections to this now, or in the future, an RfC for outside opinions might be helpful. It seems we have a broadly agreeable solution, so I think we can just stick with that and avoid one for now. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I made a simple, polite request for user:Walter Görlitz to "elaborate on what the significant minority views are and provide reliable sources for them so we could all know what we might be discussing" and I have been attacked as being "fanatical, inane and extremist POV" I'm sorry but I really don't understand why? Can anyone explain please?Theroadislong (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If you really think every scholarly POV should be included, may I remind you that Dawkins and others call the story in Genesis insane and for the feeble-mind morons or some such? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Dawkins isn't exactly a reliable or scholarly source when it comes to anything outside of biology, let alone philosophy and even more so Biblical exegesis: he has no qualifications in the field nor has he written anything beyond polemic (in keeping with the style of the so-called "New Atheists", all fluff and soundbytes for an age of soundbytes, unlike the Good Old Atheists like Bertrand Russell and Antony Flew, back in the 1960s at least). However, thank you for a colorful example that hopefully will break the cycle of back-and-forth here. St John Chrysostom /_my bias 23:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the current note is redundant and brings unnecessary attention to the issue. What the note states is all covered at the creation myth article, which is linked. There's no need for this overkill. I just noticed that the opening sentence at the creation myth article states: "A creation myth or creation story is...", so why not incorporate that here by expanding the link to include the term "story"? Thoughts? — FoxCE (talk | contribs) Genesis creation narrative, and 'myth' is, is because 'narrative' and 'story' have a more similar meaning than 'narrative' and 'myth'. As 'narrative' is in the title of this article (which has, of course, been discussed), it is not necessary for 'narrative' to be repeated in the first sentence. Using the same reasoning, 'story' has been excluded from the first sentence of the lede. Now, in Creation myth, the word 'myth' is in the title and 'narrative' and 'story' aren't, so it makes sense to include one or the other in that article's lede. Colonel Tom 23:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As the current note states, the "myth" that is used in this article is meant to be the academic definition as defined in Encyclopedia Britannica and other sources, i.e. "a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it". So in the context of this article at least, "myth" is synonymous with "narrative" and/or "story". — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 23:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and I understand the point you're making. The discussions above (the discussions which resulted in a consensus to keep 'myth' in the lede) indicate a disagreement with that perspective, however, in that many editors clearly do not consider 'myth' and 'narrative' to be synonymous in the context of this article. Colonel Tom 00:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC) edit - (BTW, I agree with your first sentence. I also believe that the note is redundant and unnecessary.) Colonel Tom 01:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

FoxCE, you bolded the wrong part. Let me fix it: "a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it". But then again this is a long tired argument. Even with the clear consensus of using "myth", those who want "narrative" don't give up.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure who is being referenced by "they don't give up", and to clarify that I have no problems with the use creation myth, but do understand how it could be misunderstood by those uninitiated in the academic use of the term. There are academicians who prefer the use narrative, my former OT prof being one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Not referring to anyone in particular. Apologies if that sounded combative. And I do agree that the note is a bit unnecessary. Apologist even. It just doesn't sit well with me at all how Genesis is being given this special treatment in deference to some of the readers. It's perfectly obvious in past discussions that the real reason why some want this is because it's Christian. You don't see this kind of arguments in Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, or whatnot. It's a bit like the old practice of demonization, but in reverse.

Don't worry though, I have no desire to jump into the same debate again.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with everyone above, the note is unnecessary. I've been saying that from the beginning, but few others spoke up, so I've been focusing on the wording instead. I think there are some pretty solid reasons why the note should be excluded altogether... and based on the number of voices here disagreeing with it, I think it makes sense to 1) remove it until we have consensus it should stay and have decided on wording, 2) if there are dissenting voices who want it in, hold an RfC to gather a broader opinion. Does that sound reasonable to everyone?   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That works for me, and I still support my above "]" link change suggestion. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 02:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur with both Jess and Fox. Fox's suggestion seems to be the most efficient. Nformation 02:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Fox, I think we don't even need to do that - after reading all this palaver, all of it an attempt by good editors to accommodate just one other editor, I've come to the conclusion that there's really no way to placate those for whom "myth" is an emotive trigger rather than an academic definition. See my new subthread below. PiCo (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point, we should probably leave it as-is for the time being. Perhaps my suggestion can be harbored in the event that a significant number of users begin to demand a further compromise of some sort. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 03:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Too much to read through until at least the weekend, I would just note that with respect to "reliable", there are sources which are "reliable" scholarship and are preferred (books by recognized experts, peer reviewed papers, etc.), then there are sources which are equally "reliable" but only as to being acknowledged spokespersons for a particular viewpoint.

Scholarship is scholarship (within which there may be viewpoints), and viewpoints are viewpoints, but the viewpoint twain shall never meet. Apologies for stating the obvious. VєсrumЬа ►TALK Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it's been said, Walter, but wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We just had a long and excruciating arbcom case about offense as it pertains to religious believers and that we're not censored was soundly upheld. Furthermore, if you take a look at WP:RNPOV you will see that mythology is specifically mentioned as an example of a term that has a certain scholarly meaning and "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view." We seem to be following policy to the letter here and claiming offense is not going to justify the change, that's just not how WP works. Nformation 22:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you missing the "avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader" part?

If only the term used were mythology and not myth, a fine distinction, but that is territory for theologians, and this is a theological article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You're taking that out of context again. Misplaced Pages articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. The article uses the word in only a formal sense, to avoid causing unnecessary offense. It does not say "Whatever you do, avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." - SudoGhost 19:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, your quip that those who want myth in the article are intentionally trying to poke people is rude and uncalled for. Please keep your speculations as to the motives of other editors to yourself - it's not appropriate here. Nformation 22:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a quip, not an speculation, it was an observation and it was completely called-for.

Don't lecture me on assuming good faith unless you also lecture the comment to which I was responding which did the same thing in reverse. It's a huge double-standard that I've seen you and other editors impose on other editors here and you've got to stop being one-sided in your criticism.

The issue for me is not that the term is used, it's that no compromise can be reached to attempt to explain the it. So the fact still remains: those of you who are opposed to elaboration of the term are sticking their heads in the sand if you think that the vandalism and unconstructive edits will stop just because you think you're justified in your use of the bare term. The unconstructive edits won't stop and there will be debates like this until you realize that the position is unsustainable. It's easier to explain the term rather than force people to debate you here. Those unconstructive edits are just as much to blamed on those who hold to the term as it's currently used as those who actually make the edits. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been following this discussion much, so forgive me if this has already been said, but isn't explaining the term is exactly what wikilinks are for? - SudoGhost 01:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If it actually did what we all assume it should do, then we wouldn't have editors coming to this page and changing only that term. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In short, it seems that there are editors here who are assuming that what's broken is other editors. That's not supported by the evidence. The other editors are not broken. The way that Misplaced Pages works is not broken--whether wikilinking or the ability for editors to edit (read: lock the article). What's broken is the way that phrase is being presented. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The statement is presented in accordance with policy and that's what we're supposed to do. Secondly, people would change it without without a qualifier because people simply don't like seeing their religion treated as though it is the same as other religions. I've pointed out the relevant policies, sources have been well documented on this page supporting the use of the term, and that's all that really matters. Nformation 02:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Policy? I doubt it. Guideline maybe. Agreement, most likely. If you want to keep your head in the sand, go ahead. You can wrap that around all the obfuscating discussion you want, but unless the phrase is changed or elaborated you will continue to have edits made to fix it. I have written that before and it was ignored. You may continue to ignore it, but at some point you're going to have to face the facts that the phrse needs to be changed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There is such a policy. WP:RNPOV (specifically editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings.) - SudoGhost 08:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

" Oh. That policy. The one that starts, "Misplaced Pages content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs" (emphasis mine). Right. We should get on that immediately. So far we only encompass an academic viewpoint. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, even out of context. The designation of creation myth in no way affects the rest of the article's ability to encompass what motivates individuals, and I would say that the third paragraph of the lede does indeed touch on the motivation of at least the reasoning for the narrative. If you feel that this is inadequate, you're more than welcome to fix it, but that's ultimately another subject entirely, unrelated to the fact that creation myth is backed by both reliable sources and Misplaced Pages policy. - SudoGhost 16:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

But it's the policy and it's completely in context. It's time we addressed encompassing what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs to meet the policy. Every attempt at fixing has been reverted by the cabal here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with that, because I'm honestly not sure to what you're referring (I haven't really read anything outside of this subsection/what I've directly responded to), but in regards to the topic of this section, the only thing I was addressing was the creation myth wikilink and the discussion about rewording it due to possible misunderstandings of the meaning. Outside of that, I have no comment or opinion, because I don't know is being referred to. I apologize if I gave the impression that I was referring to something else as well, my comments were about the wording of the link, nothing more. - SudoGhost 16:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There are certain things that are controversial, in which there is no wording that will satisfy everyone and solve all disagreements. Religious topics such as this are a prime example. Such articles will always have editors come along to try to reword the article to adhere to their point of view, not out of maliciousness, but of a desire to improve the article. I don't believe that people removing this because they disagree with it is indicative of an issue with the article, but rather that it is a religious subject. - SudoGhost Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you are fortunate. It is likely you haven't seen this problem because many religious articles have been indefinitely semi-protected to prevent perpetual edit-warring on controversial subjects. If you look at WP:NPOV, Religion has its own subsection under "Controversial subjects" (WP:RNPOV), the only other one being "Pseudoscience and related fringe theories". - SudoGhost 05:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The use of the term creation myth fails to adhere to WP:NPOV as it is clearly a POV spin, I have edited it out twice only to have it reverted, with the last editor stating that it is included after reaching editor consensus, however WP:NPOV clearly indicates that this is inappropriate when it states

"The principles upon which this policy (WP:NPOV) is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus". 

I don't wish to get into an edit war over the subject, therefore, I expect that some cooler heads need to prevail over this matter and present the matter from both sides, stating what views are held by both parties rather than present the idea that creation is a myth as a factual statement. I invite additional comments on the matter. Willietell (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the talk page, it is not "clearly" anything, and is certainly not "clearly POV". Creation myth has a definition, and this subject fits this definition and has been called such by numerous reliable sources. You're more than welcome to demonstrate why you feel it is in violation of NPOV, but I would ask that read WP:RNPOV beforehand. - SudoGhost 05:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Fortune has nothing to do with it. I just don't see this sort of debate over things that are simple. I've explained why, but obviously, simplicity eludes certain editors.

And speaking of simple, it's simply not a POV issue. The class of narrative is the creation myth. That's not POV. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on the content and not the contributors. - SudoGhost 06:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

For pity sake, the issue is the editors and not the content. Sorry if you don't comprehend that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagreements are not cause for incivility, and "simplicity eludes certain editors" was not a constructive comment meant to improve this article. That I do comprehend. - SudoGhost 07:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a disagreement. It's blatant disregarding of facts as presented. Sorry if you feel otherwise. Feel free to report my actions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this edit is a good solution. Both sides are accommodated with the edit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) WP:NPOV, perhaps arbitration of some sort is in order. Willietell (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Summing up

Here's a summary of positions from most recent editors:

THE NOTE IS NOT NEEDED:

• Jess - "the note is unnecessary"
• FoxCE - "the current note is redundant"
• Obsidi♠n - "I do agree that the note is a bit unnecessary."
• Tom - "the note is redundant and unnecessary."
• St John Chrysostom - "If we're going to have a note (and this is one thing I actually did propose first, and was argued out of seeing the necessity of it above)..." (John goes on to say he's happy with the wording of the note as it stands, but this is about the very existence of the note, and he says he's been argued out of that position) - agreed. A dose of learning cured me of my push for further definition. St John Chrysostom /_my bias 18:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY STAND: (sorry guys, I couldn't find a pithy quote above)

• Walter Görlitz - (seems to lean towards the "not needed" camp)
• Theroadislong
• Eusebeus - "the note wording ("as used in britannica...") comes across to me (and probably me alone) as sounding amateurish, like the kind of thing one would find in a first year undergraduate essay" (Eusebeus is against the current wording, but I can't see any comment on the note in general).
• Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556

To sum up, the only enthusiastic, unequivocal supporter of the existence of the note is Zenkai - the rest of us, even those who proposed and supported the note, have been lukewarm. The lack of real support indicates that it should be dropped. PiCo (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Bingo. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 15:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that clarification of "myth" is needed for those unfamiliar with its academic use. The note was a good option, but far from ideal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a clarification of what is meant by "myth" is needed. A lot of people don't understand what "myth" means academically. A clarification is a necessity because the current wording confuses many readers. Zenkai _talk 16:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What we think is not important. Based on the edits made to the lede, I would argue one is necessary to avoid well-meaning edits that change the meaning. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for a note, Misplaced Pages is a scholarly encyclopaedia and the creation myth article is perfectly clear on its meaning. We should assume a certain level of intelligence of our readersTheroadislong (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with intelligence or a lack thereof, it has to do with semantics and that argument requires intelligence to understand. We either completely lock the article so no one can edit it or editors will "fix" the article to "correct" the myth statement. In the brief time that I've been watching the page, that one statement has caused at least six edit wars. Why are a few "academics" digging their heels in instead of correcting an obvious problem in the most simple way? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Because if we pandered to everyone and everything that someone somewhere might not understand, we'd need a shitload of notes. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a note isn't the best solution, but something has to be done to fix the lead. Zenkai _talk 18:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Soooo, any ideas? Zenkai _talk 00:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I think everyone is missing the obvious. If we don't explain it, the article will be "fixed" (read: vandalized) so that it makes sense. I fully understand what the term means. I disagree that this article should be for and by academics and we should write the article for everyone, not only academics. It's amazing that the other editors here don't understand that. So here's my idea: write to be understood by everyone, not only academic. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's really not difficult to click a blue link and read the next article. I'd go as far as to say that's one of the greatest parts about the Wiki interface. It's not that we write for academics, it's that we're a scholarly encyclopedia and thus use academic terms. Consensus has been strong to keep "myth" and I doubt consensus to change this will form anytime soon. I'm not adverse to other changes in the lede but I think it's time to drop the "myth" debate as it's been hashed and rehashed on many occasions with the same conclusions. Nformation 01:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing there to clarify the issue though. Sorry. I explained that a long time ago and it may have been missed. It simply explains the various creation myths, not what the term means. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and this isn't about the "myth" debate. It's about the article's vandalism because of the "myth" of academic use superseding common usage. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for missing it. That, in and of itself is an issue. My proposed solution would be to write that into the Creation myth article (why it wouldn't be there now is beyond me). Regarding the vandalism, this is just something we have to deal with on WP. I think if myth were not in the lede we would find people adding it just as consistently as people remove it. Nformation 01:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait sorry I must be confused, the open to the article is "A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it." is that not clear enough or am I missing something here? Nformation 01:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely not clear enough. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree but am not adverse to clarification if you think it's necessary. Nformation 01:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Noformation that it's clear. As I've said before, we get vandalism to change clear wording based on a common POV all the time, all over wikipedia. It's simply a part of editing an open encyclopedia. Check the archives for Talk:Atheism; their definition has been debated over and over again, so many times I no longer check the page. See the talk page for Mohammed; their use of images has been debated so many times they have a separate talk page just for that. We don't make changes to our articles due to vandalism. We make changes to our article when good sources are presented which conflict with our current wording. No such sources or arguments have been presented, so the wording need not be changed. If you have a proposal based on our current sources, please present it. Abstract notions that "the article should be changed so we won't have as much vandalism" are spurious.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK it's clear. Feel free to remove all future "corrections" to that section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Reader Comment(s)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is going nowhere fast. Without specific changes being proposed progress is unlikely

John D 13/02/12 I am a Christian and I know know many Christian scientists, such as Ken Ham, would agree that Genesis is a literal record of history and that, actually, Messopotamian religions are based on the true Creation account in Genesis. This view, I believe, is supressed by many leading scientists who are biased against it. Is it too much to ask for Misplaced Pages to convey the message that many believe, for good reason, that genesis is in fact a literal history, without belittling this point of view? Every time I read a wikipedia article, I get the impression that wikipedia is biased towards a pagan POV because it seeks only to please non-believers. In my humble oppinion, wikipedia could broaden its publicity by promoting an even balance to both sides of the argument and avoid hurting people. 121.208.45.188 (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I regret your belief is not considered a Reliable source for Misplaced Pages articles. But I can assure you that when the scholarly consensus changes to consider the Genesis creation myth as literally true, then this article will then reflect that. Eusebeus (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, not presenting all the facts is deceitful and quite poor workmanship. 121.208.45.188 (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. What facts are un/misrepresented and what reliable sources would you suggest be used to substantiate those facts? Eusebeus (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, John (although Ham is a scientist, not a scholar). But until a lot more editors support that view, it just isn't going to happen. Sorry! Wekn reven 17:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

So is this POV by consensus? Just because you've pushed away other editors who would agree with John, doesn't mean that the opinions are unsupported or incorrect. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages consensus, site wide, is that the reliability of sources matter. No one is trying to push anyone away, certainly not due to their POV. However, the suggestion that we should suspend WP:RS and WP:Weight simply because this topic is different, and some people really believe it, isn't possible. Eusebeus's approach is the right one. If any editor, regardless of POV, presents reliable sources we haven't considered, then we can consider changes to the article to reflect them.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No sir, consensus is page by page and occasionally project by project. It is not site-wide. WP:RS is the guideline (as is WP:V), but so is WP:POV and you may be alluding to WP:UNDUE, but I'm not stating that at all. I'm simply stating that while watching this article for the past month, that whenever someone offers a reliable source that differs with the scholars listed here, it's immediately dismissed and wikilawyered down. That has to stop. We need to encourage input from editors who can offer RSs that are contrary to the RSs offered here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There are policies on wikipedia about reliable sources and these are site wide and non-negotiable. Unreliable and poor sources will and should be rejected. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages reflects on how the sources balance the issue. Being NPOV does not mean we treat all viewpoints as equally valid alternatives. Instead we give due weight, some few (and really it is few) scientists/scholars/historian may think the creation myth is literally true but the vast vast vast majority think it is not true. Therefore wikipedia gives most weight to what the vast vast vast majority of scholars/historians take to be the case, otherwise we have delved into an original synthesis. As you yourself note: Is it too much to ask for Misplaced Pages to convey the message that many believe, for good reason,, since many many many times more reliable sources favour the idea that the genesis narrative is a myth it is only logical that we treat it as such by your argument. You also seem to be confusing Pagans who have beliefs with non-believers. Justifying your position with speculation of a massive conspiracy seems also a non-productive way to construct your argument. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops! I forgot to specify what John was right about and a lengthly discussion ensued...just another typical WP Talk Page situation! One note, a lot of what they are saying above is what WP tries to do -- often unsuccessfully. You can access my opinion by clicking on the "Wekn" part of my signature. This is just an opinion, and I'm not completely finished with it. Wekn reven 18:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Walter, if you honestly believe that WP:RS and WP:V are only guidelines which can be overridden by local consensus, then I suggest you discuss it with an admin or a noticeboard; that is flatly not how we operate.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie- You're unfortunately incorrect about NPOV, in that all viewpoints must be discussed if they have RSs. That's what due weight is about. We don't give equal weight to all theories, but they must be discussed.

@Mann_jess If you think that's what I wrote, you need to read it again because that's not what I wrote. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I said "Misplaced Pages consensus, site wide, is that the reliability of sources matter". You disagreed with that, and said it was "page by page", and then went on to call WP:RS and WP:V a "guideline". I don't know how else to interpret that. The OP has objected to sourced content in the article, and has been asked to provide sources of his own. He has not done that. We cannot reflect such a change in the article based on his unsourced opinions. WP:V is very flatly not "page by page".   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What you say is technically correct, but the wording is awkward. It's not consensus. WP:RS is a "content guideline".

This page documents an English Misplaced Pages content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow.

First the heading on RS then V.

I don't disagree with that at all. If you check the pages, which I don't think you have recently, that's the wording at the very top of both. If you don't like that, go discuss it there. There is no way to interpret a literal transcription of the words as they are presented. I'll wait for you to read it and correct yourself.

Also, while you're doing some reading, you might want to read WP:TALK, specifically WP:TOPPOST and WP:TALKO. Don't add spaces to make reading easier for yourself. Editors may want to have their comments next to the previous one while you don't like it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing further. I'm not saying that every nut job that comes to the article or this talk page with an opinion should be given equal weight to the reliable sources offered in the article, but immediate dismissive behaviour and biting is not acceptable. We must give the appropriate weight to all valid discussions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:V is policy. So is WP:Weight. Check them again. I will repeat: the OP has asked us to change the article without providing sources. We can't do that. BTW, I'm also not aware of anything in WP:TALK (including your links) which prohibits adding whitespace around comments. I checked again to be sure. The only relevant piece I see is the allowance to fix formatting and layout irregularities. If I've missed something, and it's really that important to you, then tell me.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't discussing WEIGHT, but I did say that V was policy. WEIGHT is a section of neutral point of view, and that's what I'm saying too: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Please stop arguing against what you think I'm saying and actually read what I'm writing.

Layout irregularities are defined as indent level, not spaces. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

On 13 February 13, at 17:55, you said "WP:RS is the guideline (as is WP:V)". At 16:56 EST, you copy/pasted the "content guideline" text and then wrote

I stand corrected.

Your initial content was the reliability of sources matters, and it started with "Misplaced Pages consensus, site wide, is that the reliability of sources matter." and that's not a problem. I seem to have misread your statement and what I read was "Misplaced Pages consensus is site wide". We are saying the same thing and I don't need to correct your understanding but I do need to correct my reading comprehension.

With that said, I do believe that RS, V and consensus are used as a hammer against editors who offer a differing POV. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Closing thread as this isn't going anywhere. Sources that meet RS guidelines are required if additions are going to made to the article and that's the curl of the burl Nformation 23:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

@Walter. Ah, I see. Understandable confusion... I've been known to glance over commas myself. I'm glad we agree. Look forward to working collaboratively with you in the future :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

RS on new sources

In the consensus, are the Berit Olam commentary by Cotter and the Old Testament Library Commentary by von Rad considered reliable? Keil and Delitzsche? (Link to Volume 1 of 10). And, St Augustine's writings on Genesis for a section, "Genesis in Theology"? And, the NICOT volumes on Genesis? Sadly, chapters 1-17 are not on Google Books: the latter part is, partially. Waltke? I'm assuming that Wenham is since he's already used. The above are generally moderate and conservative (that is, traditional in nature, to head off any misunderstanding after the massive argument about the use of the word "conservative" above) sources. I have no idea what constitutes a reliable Jewish source. Does the Gutnick edition of the Chumash? The Talmud and Midrash? Rashi? I have no interaction with any more recent Jewish commentators except for Sarna. I have been unable to find an Islamic source that can pass muster as even quasi-scholarly in either Arabic or in English, and there are few in any case (unless it has to do with the interaction of Genesis and the Koran).

I am working on a rewrite of vast tracts of the article, which I will post to talk here before making any changes. I'm trying to improve the prose (which is ghastly in many places) and give greater flesh to Genesis in theology, as it is essentially a religious document, and also to greater emphasis on the redaction and source criticism of the book from a moderate perspective (although I likely will include Westermannian views as well). So far, the article is essentially an introductory commentary to Genesis: it can be much more, as Misplaced Pages is not paper. St John Chrysostom /_my bias 07:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course Cotter and Von Rad are RS - but be careful with Rad, given he wrote so long ago. In general, use the most recent sources you can find, and for the views of people like Augustine, use modern sources which discuss his views, rather than himself direct. (There's actually a book in the bibliography which does this - not used in the article.) Although Misplaced Pages is electrons, there is a suggestion somewhere in the policy that article length be kept to a certain limit. Dougweller would know more about that than I do. PiCo (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The high end for articles is usually 50-75k. See WP:Article size. There's a vector script to calculate it. The current page is 42k of prose (66k with refs).   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it be wise then, to merely add section headers for some sections, and spin off something like "Genesis in Christian theology" (working title) in to a new article with the "see main article" markup, if my revision goes over say, 75-80k? Edit: that definitely will be needed, as I'm already at 131k in emacs. St John Chrysostom /_my bias 22:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind the "prose count" excludes references, images, and other WP formatting, so emacs may be counting incorrectly. (Funny, I've written article content in vi before. Figured I was the only one.) Spinning new content into a separate article might be a good idea anyway. Just make sure the topic is notable in and of itself. In this case, it probably is, so that's a good idea.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Its length would have to be in excess of 154,163 bytes (about 150 K), including all text, to make it onto the list of 1000 longest pages. We can worry about where to split if we get close to that, although the exegetical points seems like a good break. The concern is render time of the page and this page doesn't have a lot of tables or templates and so it loads quite quickly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The page load time isn't the only concern. Read WP:Article size. Another issue is making the article readable, and a concise overview of the topic, without getting bogged down on specifics which could do better under another title. That's what "prose size" is important, without references or wiki markup. The article right now is manageable, but since we're talking about adding a significant amount of new content, a new article (with a summary here) sounds like it might be the best option.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I use emacs because, 1) I remember reading in some Obscure Guideline 573 (I'm one of those guys who try to read all of the Wikispace guidelines/policies/essays, and still miss major blocks of them, as my years-long unawareness of the fact that there were any guidelines for userspace beyond "no copyright infringement") that one should not use MS notepad for some arcane technical reason; 2) it can be configured to look like wikiEd, 3) OpenOffice is extremely unwieldy, unoptimized, and inefficient for the purpose, and 4) because I hate vi (maybe because I can't operate it?). St John Chrysostom /_my bias 12:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sweeping changes

Template:Cleanup-remainder

• 09:58, 14 February 2012‎ Telpardec (Not all italics for quotes, the Bible uses italics to indicate words added by translators - moved non-English jargon from quote - not 2 narratives, 2 accounts of creation narrative, general framework and special details - misc.copyedit)
• 10:33, 14 February 2012‎ PiCo (Undid revision 476807765 by Telpardec (talk)I don't disagree with all your edits, but I find this a bit sweeping. Can you do it more slowly?)

More slowly? Five hours for one edit is not exactly warp speed. (Weak grin :) Granted, the "misc.copyedit" at the end of the edit comment did not include reasons for the tweaks, but it was mostly addressing over-linking, (including multiple bibleref links to the 2 chapters already linked in headers), consistency between sections, terminology clarification and simplification where jargon is not needed. Added a (currently red-linked) wiki link for David M. Carr, shortened his verbose qualifications, and added a link to his bio at Union Theo/etc., with the citation reference at the end of sentence. Also added a better link to Google books with a partial quote that displays a blurb in the search results.
Any other concerns? —Telpardec  TALK  12:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

One reason to do it in stages is so you can explain as you go along. I've reverted a paragraph where you in particular added 'special creatures as helpers'. It confused me and I suspect would confuse our readers as so far as I can see 'special creatures' is often used to refer to Adam & Eve, and it wasn't in the source either. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Doug. Anyway, it is certain that the woman is special – all the other creatures, including the man, were made from dead dirt, but she was made from a live rib – the crowning act of creation. Stages? Hmmm... let me add a mental note to my collection of yellow sticky notes plastered around the inside of my empty skull... :)
—Telpardec  TALK  16:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Only the older English Bibles (being the KJV and DRC) use italics to (very inconsistently and with great editorial discretion) indicate words present in the translation which are not present in the original languages. The NASB and NKJV do as well, but no other widespread translation (i.e. not the NWT) does. I find italics are more often used now in the NT when it quotes from the OT, and in the OT not at all. What translation is being quoted from, that consistently uses italics to indicate English words not in the Hebrew? I hope that we're not quoting the KJV (although it's a fine translation): I default to the ESV for Misplaced Pages. It seems as if a somewhat literal modern translation is called for. I would use the NASB if it was more available online (the "bibleref" template returns an error when one uses "NASB"). St John Chrysostom /_my bias 12:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

six or seven days

There seems to be some confusion.

Genesis 1:31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

Six days. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

In six days He created, but the seventh day He rested; though one could say on the seventh day He created rest. Wekn reven 15:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Westminster Leningrad Codex (WLC)

31 וַיַּ֤רְא אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֔ה וְהִנֵּה־טֹ֖וב מְאֹ֑ד וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר יֹ֥ום הַשִּׁשִּֽׁי׃

1 וַיְכֻלּ֛וּ הַשָּׁמַ֥יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ וְכָל־צְבָאָֽם׃

2 וַיְכַ֤ל אֱלֹהִים֙ בַּיֹּ֣ום הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י מְלַאכְתֹּ֖ו אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֑ה וַיִּשְׁבֹּת֙ בַּיֹּ֣ום הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י מִכָּל־מְלַאכְתֹּ֖ו אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָֽׂה׃

The fact that the work was finished completed, etc. on the sixth day (2:1) means that all the work was completed by the end of the sixth. Don't just look at 2:2 since chapter and verse boundaries are arbitrary and the text is a continuous thought. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rest is not part of creation. It doesn't fit into the parallel of the first three and the second three days. And since scripture doesn't say that he created rest, saying that God created rest on day 7 is WP:OR. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Görlitz, that was a reply to the anonymous comment, not to your reply. It wasn't too serious either. I'm not even remotely suggesting that my OR be added to the article, so the comment was acceptable. Rest was not mentioned to have existed before the event, nor was it anywhere in the Scriptures mentioned that on that day He created rest. It was a matter of jest. This article is concerned with when His work was finished anyway, so I didn't expect to take this so seriously. By the way, I didn't actually look at 2:2. I just explained from memory. Matter of fact, Genesis 1:1 all the way up to about 6:8 are one "continuous thought". Wekn reven 16:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Pure WP:OR. Rest was also not clearly stated as being created. It is not material and so it was not part of creation. I will be changing back unless you can provide a source that rest was created. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Changing back what??? I'm a little confused; I haven't edited this article for days! Wekn reven 18:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it! I thought the 'there seems to be a little confusion' part of your opening comment was by someone else, and that you replied. My mistake. Actually, I support your edit proposal. Go ahead and make the edit. Wekn reven 18:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Made the change back to six, and the source doesn't have the word chaos in the referenced pages, but it heavily emphasizes the parallels between the first three and the next three days of creation. It points out that the seventh day is the odd one out and that creation is complete by the end of day six. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the Ruiten reference, there is no "day zero" or "primeval chaos" (or "chaos") or "cosmic order" (or "cosmic" or "order") and nothing halfway close, so I removed the entire sentence. The alternate spelling "primaeval" appears in the book title and numerous pages as the phrase, "primaeval history", but no chaos. The rest of the paragraph appears to be a fair statement from the source.
—Telpardec  TALK  04:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I didn't see it listed either and if we're concerned with length, pruning WP:OR is a good place to start. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Page 10 of the Ruiten reference has a table setting out the "framework" structure of Genesis 1. It begins with an "Introduction", then the two sets of three days beginning with Day 1 through to Day 6, and concluding with Day 7. In other words, the framework doesn't begin on day 1, but at a point before, Day Zero. Please restore the passage in the article, ok :) PiCo (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Chaos isn't listed though. If we restore the phrase we need to select different wording. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no "Day Zero" in Ruiten's work, which is primarily an analysis of the book of Jubilees, compared with Genesis. ("The aim of this study is to investigate the way Genesis 1:1-11:19 was rewritten in the Book of Jubilees."--P. 5.) The page 10 table is a bare bones comparison of 8 highlights, with footnotes admitting the failure of items to directly correspond. (See also page 9 footnotes.) On the page 11 table, there is a blank cell at the beginning in the Genesis side, next to the Jubilees' "INTRODUCTION" section. Ruiten includes Gen.1:1-2 in the 2nd section next to the "FIRST DAY" section of Jubilees, although he still labels Gen.1:1-2 as "INTRODUCTION". A blank cell is not a zero "day". Bottom line: We can't restore the sentence with "different wording" using Ruiten as a source for "day zero" or "chaos" or "cosmic" anything.
—Telpardec  TALK  18:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, you're right, and I'll try to find a different source, because it's quite important for the accuracy of our article - the framework structure, as the term is used by scholars, has the 6 days sandwiched between a "before" and "after", not beginning with day 1. —Telpardec, I don't have much time for Misplaced Pages these days, but I'll try to find a better source - maybe Walton, since he's something of a specialist in this area? PiCo (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is wikipedia endorsing pov sources as undisputed fact? Arbitration is badly needed here

Why must certain editors here continually force wikipedia to endorse POV sources as if they were undisputed, unassailabe fact that nobody disagrees with? This is yet another example of intellectual dishonesty in this article. There needs to be a major arbitration on this article, because significant viewpoints as usual are being brushed aside as if some new information had supposedly come up settling the controversy, which it most certainly has not. Numerous editors coming here immediately notice that the article is a one sided propaganda vehicle and that it teaches a certain point of view as uncontroversial doctrine, but a small team of editors who proudly self identify themselves as atheist, routinely band together and drive all of the impartial editors out. I will fully support any moves made by anyone toward long needed arbitration of this article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please provide specific examples so that we may go over them one by one. It doesn't really help anyone to make a generalized complaint like this. Also, I don't think it's the arbitration committee's job to address issues like this.Farsight001 (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct, Arbcom has no control over content or policy, they are enforcers of policy only in regards to editor behavior. Nformation 00:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on content and not on contributors. If something in the article is actually wrong then it does no service to your point to attempt to group editors into atheist vs. theist or any other system. Nformation 00:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have also seen these same editors who self identify as atheist, more times than I care to recount, immediately label any arriving editor or even any published theologian who disagrees with their atheology, as "creationist" or worse, when they don't even self identify as such. They are the ones who group themselves, group others, this is just another case of being able to dish it out but not being able to take it in the least. Their circular reasoning litmus test for whether a source is reliable (i e if it holds the same point of view they accept) is unacceptable and making a mockery of calling this a "neutral" encyclopedia. That's why much more light desperately needs to be thrown on this backwards article, so that it doesn't just purport to "explain" theological matters from the POV of ONE side of the controversy, but rather ALL the sides without "playing favorites" as it does. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The word "arbitration" (in English) is also a synonym for any sort of mediation process in general. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we have specific uses of many terms here. You might be thinking of WP:DRN, but that would be a step to come only if discussion here cannot find consensus. There is also a mediation system, but no committee or set of users has anymore authority than any other, everything is done by WP:CONSENSUS here. Nformation 00:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You might consider reviewing the options here (Misplaced Pages:Requesting dispute resolution), but it would help to outline your specific concerns before doing so. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 00:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Being that vague and nonspecific is about as useful as having said nothing at all. This is nothing more than a rant; a venting of your frustrations. Outline your specific complaints, and we can go from there. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 00:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Fox, and the allcaps don't help much either. Eusebeus (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously characterizing the actual adherents of a religion in question as "impartial"? If they were we'd have various religious articles here vying with each other claiming each and every one of them is true. We do not count the number of adherents to satisfy WP:V, we wouldn't be much of an encyclopedia then, would we? We count the number of reliable sources. That's what prominence and notability means. Creationism has zero reliable sources that treat it as fact and thus must never be presented as such, though it can be treated in a scholarly and historical context.

A million believers still can not compare in terms of reliability to a single repeatable scientific experiment that refutes their conclusions. That is the most basic thing about NPOV. What you see as inequality is simply due weight.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly the article we would expect to see if it were controlled by one of those regimes around the world that has a militant POLITICAL agenda to eliminate Biblical beliefs from the face of the Earth. What ever happened to NEUTRALITY? This article's "neutrality" is a CROCK, whom are you kidding? You don't get to declare that only YOUR school of thought on theology is determined correct and therefore every other source is "undue weight" no matter how many support it! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a mainstream encyclopedia and so follows how mainstream science and history characterizes the topic based on the use of reliable sources. In this discussion you have presented zero reliable, secondary, independent sources. Neutrality does not mean that wikipedia must pretend that two different views have equal weight. Instead we aim to represent views fairly and proportionately WP:NPOV. A quote from WP:FRINGE: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea.. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this thread is conducive to improving the article in any way and it's starting to border on vitriol. I suggest archiving this thread and moving on people. Cheers, 58.111.81.178 (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Til, I am a very devout Christian and I believe the article is fine the way it is. Actually, I think it should use the word myth instead of narrative, to reflect the style of other articles on other religions' creation stories. It was religious people who campaigned and generally behaved exactly as you describe militant atheists behaving to get myth changed to narrative even though the proper definition of a myth does NOT mean untrue.

The point being that I, being a Christian, certainly don't want to eliminate biblical beliefs from the face of the Earth. As I asked above - please provide a specific example for improvement. We can't do anything with generalized accusations. Pick one issue, present it here, we'll go over it, and when we've come to an agreement on what to do with it, present another issue, and so on.Farsight001 (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Farsight does have a point as far as specification goes. However, I would like to ask a series of questions that all of us editors might be able to ask ourselves in the process of bettering this encyclopedia: Are the views of the authorities we appeal to accepted by a significant amount of experts in relative fields? Do the collective bearings of these authorities (esp. "majority authority") nullify or completely counter other views? Are the other views supported by a significant amount of credible, relative experts -- and what percentage of the field should they take up to be deemed significant enough to be considered with both critical and sympathetic ("neutral") points of view? On that point, how does the majority consensus bear on which one of these points of view should overweigh the other -- if any? Where is the boundary between powerful ("absolute") authority and significant speculation? How should we treat the "why" they arrived at their consensus? And most importantly, what is Misplaced Pages intended to be? Wekn reven 13:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Article talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve the article Misplaced Pages is not a forum Theroadislong (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If one wishes to improve the article, they must first improve themselves. I intended the above paragraph as a sort of, 'think about this before taking the discussion any further, then discuss'. Wekn reven 14:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait until I'm done with my full rewrite and see how it is accepted. I believe it will still be too "atheistic" or liberal for the more die-hard Christians/Jews here, but I am attempting to expand and balance it a great deal (which is no easy task, trying to write and then passing it under my own scrutiny while alternating the Christian and Atheist glasses - I suppose I know how Chamberlain must have felt). I mainly began the rewrite with some attempt at balancing and removing some unreliable sources (i.e. Ellen Gould White), but much more so to improve the absolutely terrible lack of perspicuity and bad prose in the article as is - stylistic concerns, as it reads now (and I challenge anyone to disagree) as the result of the worst kind of design by committee. I will almost certainly be spinning off at least one other article, "Genesis in Christian Theology" (as I'm at 149k with refs, and I haven't finished referencing some statements - much of my style when writing is to write out of my knowledge, so it is well written in good prose, and then go back and reference my own work, finding the sources for that knowledge, and deleting that which I can't reference, and so on), which will deal with the religious aspects of the Genesis creation narrative, and, if space permits, the entire first eleven chapters and twenty-six verses of Genesis, commonly marked the "primordial history" in exegesis (but, beware, that all of the people quoted in the lead are believing Christian theologians, not Spongites, so if it's too "biased" for you, "Genesis in Christian Theology" probably will be too). St John Chrysostom /_my bias 23:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This project has also made me consider writing some other articles (if you look at my edits, I'm mainly a copy editor), dealing with " in Theology", such as "Gospel according to John in Christian Theology", "Apocalypse of John in Christian Theology", "Qur'an in Islamic Theology", etc. - something I am surprised Misplaced Pages doesn't already have, and which most definitely is distinct from the parent articles, and is not a POV-fork, as the topic of a certain book in a certain context is completely different from a description of the book itself: much like "Nineteen eighty-four", "Impact/Influence of GO's 1984", and "Literary criticism of GO's 1984" are, for example. St John Chrysostom /_;;my bias 23:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Your division of this article into Christian/atheistic viewpoints and sole reliance of "believing Christian theologians" in the lead is disturbing. This article should be an academic summary of the Genesis creation myth and so such divisions or facts should be irrelevant to the construction of this article.

Now, obviously this creation myth is important to Christian theology, and one of the many subsets of academia that is relevant to this article is theology, so this article can and should discuss this myth with respect to Christian theology. However, Christian theology is only one of many slices of pie that we need to fit into this pie tin and so we are forced to write in a summary style. This article's discussion of this creation myth with respect to Christian theology can lead into a larger Genesis in Christian theology article where that discussion can be fleshed out even further. That is, there is nothing wrong with a Genesis in Christian theology article per se but it must not become a contrast of this article (a POV-fork), but an expansion of material that is summarised in this article and others (notably the Genesis article itself). 114.78.16.179 (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• No, I am merely pointing out for all of those that accuse the article of liberal/atheist "bias so strong that it makes 'The Nation' look conservative", that all of the sources used in the lead are by believing Christians or Jews (that is, the article isn't using atheistic sources to further some sort of atheistic conspiracy to vanish Biblical beliefs from the face of the planet, as alluded to above). It just so happens that all (or almost all) of the academic sources, whatever their viewpoint, dealing with the Genesis creation narrative (or any other book of the Bible, for that matter) tend to be written by religious people, who are the undisputed masters of the field (for Genesis: Wenham, Sarna, Brueggemann, Walton, von Rad, etc.). St John Chrysostom /_my bias 07:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Believes/notes

I made this revert, which was then reverted again, so I wanted to come here and discuss it. The source given does not state that Sarna "believes" it, and a belief is not the same as a statement, so this edit summary is not correct, because it turns into speculation about what is believed, rather than what is stated. - SudoGhost 02:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. Would "says" be better? Zenkai _talk 02:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Nahum Sarna

He "notes" that the Israelites borrowed themes from the Mesopotamians? How would he know? Was he there?

It would be far more accurate if "notes" was changed to "believes" or "considers'. Thank you. Zenkai _talk 02:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

How would you know that he "believes" it? See above, thank you. - SudoGhost 02:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

But "note" implies that it is a fact. Which it is not. Zenkai _talk 02:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Close. "Note" implies that they consider it a fact, not that it is one. - SudoGhost 02:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with SudoGhost here. "Notes" does not imply absolute factuality. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In this context it's presented as if it were a fact. Zenkai _talk 02:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Read the section yet again, and to me it's presented as if it is academic consensus. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't read that way. Zenkai _talk 02:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, academic consensus is fact. If there are notable fringe views to the contrary of the academic consensus, then these can be discussed in the article but must be discussed very carefully in order to avoid giving them undue weight. The relegation of intelligent design and creationism to the "social and cultural responses" section of the evolution article is a good example of how to do this. 114.78.16.179 (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sarna does not represent the academic consensus. That's beside my point anyway. Zenkai _talk 02:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Seb_az86556, you seem to have difficulty in understanding that you can't close a discussion just because you don't like it. Zenkai _talk 02:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

But he can close it when discussion is pointless because no one else shares your position. Nformation 03:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, you don't, but others do. You and seb always seem to gang up on me. Zenkai _talk 03:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No where in this thread is a statement expressing agreement with your position so no, other do not. Once again you are pushing a POV because you don't like that your religion is not given special treatment here, it's nothing new and what you call "ganging up" is simply the response you get when you try to undermine an article because you don't like it. Nformation 03:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You and seb always push your POVs, along with others. You just don't like that someone can have different views than yours. Zenkai _talk 03:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My POV is the scholarly POV so pushing it is akin to NPOV. I don't edit articles that deal with a topic with which I don't share the expert view. There is a really good reason to follow that line of thinking. When you're involved you can't think clearly. Nformation 04:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I will politely disagree. Your POV is definitely not NPOV(or anything close to it). Zenkai _talk 05:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, back on topic. Do you think "says" is better than "believes" or "considers"? Zenkai _talk 03:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The horse is dead, Zenkai. Let it go. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My proposal is actually quite good and reasonable. We will wait until others join the discussion. Zenkai _talk 03:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record: I think notes is the most appropriate word. 114.78.16.179 (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That makes it four or five to one. Plenty of others have joined. Leave the poor horse be. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

But no one has put up a good argument as to why "notes" should stay, or why "says" or "considers" aren't good enough. Zenkai _talk 05:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:TE, notably this section. Yes, we can leave this discussion open for further input, but it would be obtuse to assume consensus had not already formed. Consensus can change, but pushing this against standing consensus in the meantime is disruptive. 'Notes' represents the academic consensus where 'believes' does not; 'notes' is fine.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I took Sarna out altogether. That Genesis 1-11 uses Babylonian (and other) mythological texts as its basis is a commonplace of biblical criticism, and I know of no-one who disagrees or suggests otherwise. To suggest that this is a new or limited idea is simply misleading. If you doubt me, I can quote a dozen passages from our bibliography alone, including major college-level works. PiCo (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Pico. Attributing this to one scholar is amateurish since it is commonly understood and textbook level stuff. Eusebeus (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to have been restored.

The question is do you need a phrase that reads:

"Nahum Sarna writes that the Israelites borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to their belief in one God as expressed by the shema"

and then add a reference to Sarna? It makes much more sense to have:

"The Israelites borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to their belief in one God as expressed by the shema"

since it's obvious that it's Sarna's idea by the reference that follows it. It's also appropriate in this case to add multiple references to support the idea.

This article does this multiple times and it's not necessary to have the "bookends". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay with the shorter version without Sarna. Walter is correct that it should be apparent from the ref, and per policy we shouldn't be reducing the academic consensus down to a single opinion via unnecessary attribution. It seems that's the forming consensus here, so I've restored it for now. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 08:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Also have nthing against the shorter version without Sarna. No need to "double cite", and his statement concurs with scholarly consensus. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I attempted to solve the problem by "Sarna writes...and several other exegetes", but was reverted because the second clause was not sourced (I didn't believe it to be a contentious statement). The original phrasing was more than acceptable as well ("Sarna notes": to whoever started this argument, "If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it" - or it'll get broke worser). I support a plain reversion to the pre-contention statement, "Sarna notes" (I also support strengthening the statement with something such as, "along with most other exegetes", or, "representing the majority of scholars", or in some way someone else comes up with) which, as noted (no pun) implies majority consensus/academic consensus, without attributing to it a weight of logical fact that isn't present? I don't believe a bare statement of fact is correct in this situation, or, a bare statement of fact stated as forcefully as it is (maybe a rewording without attributing Sarna could give it appropriate weight without making it read as if it was a mathematical fact). St John Chrysostom /_my bias 00:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but it seems to me the current (bare) wording is ideal. This wording represents the broad academic consensus, where attribution to a single source (or related group) does not. Per policy, we must "avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion". I think what we'd need is not a source supporting "several other exegates" who agree, but a source backing up a prominent view to the contrary. If there is really controversy about this in the academic community, I would support clarification in the text, but without it, I'm not sure clarification is appropriate.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The status quo is imposed

It's not consensus as can be seen from the number of edits. Please attempt to fix the lede. Before anyone questions whether it needs to be fixed, look at the edit history and count the number of times it's been edited in the past four weeks. If it was actually working, it wouldn't be the primary change. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not a WP:DEMOCRACY, it's a discussion. One person with a reasoned argument beats 99 opinionated reverts 100% of the time. Consensus is achieved by reasoning how an edit helps the encyclopedia while adhering to policy. I provided you with the relevant policy here (WP:RNPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED). I don't think clarification is needed because this is an encyclopedia and is thus expected to use academic terms; that there is a subset of users that don't understand the academic terms is irrelevant per policy. If you don't think the Creation myth article is specific enough then by all means, head over there and try to make it better. But I don't think we need to clutter up the lead with unnecessary language. A wikilink is sufficient and is a pretty damn efficient system. Lastly, WP:STATUSQUO is the norm here. Nformation 23:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No one is asking for a democracy (and it's certainly not being offered) however WP:RNPOV clearly states: "Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and 'mythology. Misplaced Pages articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." (emphasis mine). So were is the effort to "unnecessary offense or misleading the reader"? I don't see it. FIX IT NOW! (shouting intended because it seems the cabal isn't listening). There have been several efforts to correct this oversight and a few editors have opposed it. The next step is to take it to the NPOV discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

And so despite what you think ("I don't think clarification is needed") you're not following the policy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We are following that policy to the letter. The sentence says to use those words only in their formal sense - this is what we're doing. It doesn't say that we have to go out of our way to explain that they are being used in a formal sense, it just says to use the formal sense. To violate this policy we would have to use "myth" in the non-formal sense. Attempts to correct this "oversight" have failed because they don't adhere to policy - this has been discussed many, many times. Thus far your arguments have come down to the fact that the term offends people and that a lot of people would like it to change - those are not arguments that carry weight here. Nformation 23:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No we are not following it to the letter as the current wording is causing "unnecessary offense or misleading the reader" and that is what is to be avoided. So try again and reformulate the lede to adhere to the policy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Walter I'm sorry but you are misreading the policy. If we were to convert the sentence into logical form it would be stated as

1. Certain words have specific meanings in certain contexts
2. Some of those words when misinterpreted may be offensive
3. Therefore we must only use those words in a formal context

There is nothing in that policy to indicate that we don't use words that cause offense, only that when we use certain words we must use them in a formal context. You are seeing a premise that isn't there, namely that we should always avoid offending people (or something akin to this). And again, I point you to WP:NOTCENSORED for maybe the 4th time now: "However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content."

What you are asking for is not in line with policy. Nformation 00:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You're imposing your POV on the policy. Feel free to read it again. I am not misreading it at all. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Simply saying it doesn't make it true, Walter. I gave you a logical breakdown of the policy and your response was to accuse me of pushing my POV rather than actually commenting on what I wrote. If you disagree with me you can say why without talking about me, if you're unable to do this then there's no point in continuing the discussion. Nformation 00:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because the Genesis myth is the most currently popular one of the bunch doesn't mean it gets preferential treatment. All other articles about creation myths outline them as being just that in the introduction, or even as part of the title itself. I still think the title here should be Genesis creation myth, but due to much backlash from adherents of the Abrahamic religions we've made a stable compromise. But the contrived changes that are currently being offered just go too far in weaseling around what is said without controversy elsewhere — that these stories are called creation myths. You don't see any push to move the Christian mythology article to "Christian stories", so why the controversy here? Myth is the academic term. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 23:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Preferential treatment is not being requested. Following WP:RNPOV is. If offense isn't intended, they why do the cabal of "academic editors" (as I call them) become so enraged when a compromise is attempted to be reached and it pushed myth out of the limelight? I don't object to the use of the term, but clarification is needed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

@FoxCE, to be fair, the current title wasn't a result of a "backlash from adherents". IIRC, it was an application of WP:UCN. I happen to think it's the wrong title, but the arguments were based on policy, and non-religious editors weighed in to give support.

@Walter, I agree with Noformation. Your arguments have been discussed and rejected a long time ago... even before you entered the discussion, in fact. There is longstanding consensus for this wording, and you've thus far failed to sway consensus for a change. We've all been there before - no big deal - but continuing to harp on it without presenting anything new is WP:IDHT behavior, which falls squarely under WP:TE. Please let it go.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think anyone here is enraged; I certainly am not and I don't see any behavior that would indicate any sort of angry emotional state. Nor would that mean that offense must be intended even if it were true. An editor could surely be upset with his work being undone whether he was attempting to offend people or not. Nformation 00:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The point that is being missed is not being missed by me Mann_jess, but by those who claim to have consensus on this issue. Quite simply, and I've stated this many times before, if it were truly neutral and had achieved the consensus of all editors it wouldn't be the target of so many editors. So stop Wikilawering and fix the phrase. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have already addressed this. That people don't like it has nothing to do with consensus. Consensus is a discussion of how best o apply policy - that people don't like the wording and attempt to change it on a regular basis does not contribute to consensus. People didn't like depictions of Muhammad in the Muhammad article and constantly removed them until the page was indef semi-protected. Then a few established editors tried to get images removed and it went to arbcom. As I already told you, in that case NOTCENSORED was once again upheld and the editor that lead the charge against images was banned for a year. I'm sorry but your position is not in line with community norms here. Nformation 00:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Also please note that "neutral" does not mean unbiased or not offensive - neutral means presenting sources according to their prominence. Nformation 00:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You may think you've addressed it, but since I have made a point which you're not addressing, you haven't. This isn't about liking the lede , it's about accommodation of both POV as per WP:RNPOV, vis: "avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You're just being vague now and not responding to anything I'm actually writing. If you present something new I'll discuss it but I will not waste anymore time repeating what I've already said. Nformation 00:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. You just don't have a clue as to the actual problem. Sorry you don't understand. I've done my best to explain but your POV clouds my comments. I trust that the RfC that is about to start will help clear things up for you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The context of your quoted information is important. There was relevant text both before and after your quote. Misplaced Pages articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings.

Creation myth, as used in the article, is done so through its formal meaning, which is reflected by the fact that it is a wikilink which takes readers to the appropriate article, explaining the exact meaning meant. The lede therefore fulfills WP:RNPOV by using the formal meaning of creation myth to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. This is what WP:RNPOV says. It does not say "accommodation of both POV to avoid causing unnecessary offense..." but rather "Formal meaning to avoid causing unnecessary offense..." - SudoGhost 15:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The only reason to object to a clarification in the text of the article is a desire to portray the story in Genesis as fictional. We all know that the academic sense of "myth" has a meaning which is clearly at odds with the way the word is understood by the average reader. The common understanding of the word is a fictional narrative. The academic use is different.

There are editors (and WP:AGF isn't meant to make us shut our minds to the reality of the situation) who want to use the word myth precisely because the average reader will read it as defining the Genesis narrative as fiction. There are other editors who want to avoid the use of the word "myth" at all costs, because they don't want any hint given to the average user that Genesis may not be literally true.

The Genesis creation narrative is the story of the creation of the world as described in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible). It is a creation myth, in the academic sense of the term.

User:Noformation reverted the edit with the comment "We're an encyclopedia and thus expected to be academic, we don't need to state that, it's just sloppy". That's an outrageous and almost humorous rationale for reverting an edit which clarifies the usage of the word and makes the entire conflict unnecessary.

User:FoxCE reverted it with the comment "rv - contrived and biased sentence... allow the reader to visit the linked creation myth article to further their understanding of the term". It is certainly contrived, but not in any way that reduces the simple readability of the sentence. Nor is it biased in any way. And the idea that a user should have to click through in order to see a definition of a term that has a very well known common meaning is beyond outrageous. This is a patent attempt to obscure things, and to make the article more biased, rather than less.

User:Noformation reverted the edit again, accusing User:Walter Görlitz of edit warring for restoring the edit twice. Why is that edit warring any more than Noformation's two reverts?

Given the incessant wars over the word "myth" in this article, I'm going to start an immediate RfC on the question of this edit. Misplaced Pages should be clear to the average reader, and attempts to muddy the waters will not stand. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit protect request 23 February 2012

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Genesis creation narrative. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

• Please change {{Sc|L|ORD}} with plain text LORD (note: case sensitive; 5 occurences)
• Please change {{Sc|L|ord}} with plain text Lord (note: case sensitive; 7 occurences)

• Reason: The template {{sc}} used these ways does exactly nothing. It produces the outcome as proposed in the next code. This is even the case for side effects regarding {{smallcaps}}, like when non-CSS reading (mobiles) and copy-pasting text to a different editor (no lowercase/uppercase change happening before or after).
• Test:
  • Old {{Sc|L|ORD}} → LORD (equals new LORD → LORD)
  • Old {{Sc|L|ord}} → LORD (equals new Lord → Lord)
• Non-controversial? Indeed. This is a technical change, the resulting page is not altered. The template is used idle. It definitely refrains from proposing changes to the text (It does not alter the casing).
• Background: template {{sc}} is to be merged into {{smallcaps}}, per this TfD. Removing these idle usages here makes the merge possible (to be specific for this page: do not use the second argument. Since the usage is idle, we can throw the template away alltogether). -DePiep (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• I advise that this be declined. The problem is not with the content of the article, it's the editors who refuse to see that there are problems with the lede. It's a content dispute. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

??? As I said: this edit is not about content or the dispute. Content will not change. The dispute is not about this edit. I am not in the dispute. -DePiep (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you replace instances of {{sc}} with {{smallcaps}}, as that output is what's intended? Also, I made a change to sc to properly use smallcaps. — Bility (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Because {{sc}} is sitting in between without doing anything. Idle. "LORD" produces "LORD". So we kick the middle {{sc}} out and have the same page. And: I want {{sc}} out because it is a to-be-merged template. It is will be deleted or neutralised. All this I wrote in "Reason" and "Background" above. And "Test" says: text "LORD" will be "LORD". I'd say: stop worrying, start helping. -DePiep (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and to be clear: there is no smalcaps involved. Not before, not after. If you want something for smallcaps, start another proposal talk afer this edit. -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If by "smallcaps" you mean the template, no, but it did use the smallcaps font-variant. Anyway, it's changes to {{sc}} that produced the plain text so fixing that error (by replacing it with the template that superseded it) fixes your complaint about {{sc}} being idle also. This can all be handled in one edit instead of two for simplicity's sake. — Bility (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Please go away. If you mean: No, no ifs. The test is clear. LORD=LORD. -DePiep (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If all you care about is that {{sc}} isn't changing the text, then why did you revert a change to the template that fixed it? In cases of merging a template, as was decided here, you don't simply remove the deprecated template, you replace it with the new one. I don't see any reason why you would vehemently oppose fixing the underlying problems instead of myopically pursuing the removal of a malfunctioning template, while at the same time preventing it from being fixed. — Bility (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as it has to do with the proposed edit: explained in my first post here. The rest is not relevant here. Then, what is your remaining issue with my request? -DePiep (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lede define the narrative as a "myth, in the academic sense"?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The fighting over the use of the word "myth" with regards to the first two chapters of Genesis has raged on now for years. The main issue is that the word has a very well known common usage (a fictional tale) and a lesser known but widely used academic meaning ("A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it").

There are editors who are adamant that the word "myth" not be used at all in this context, lest Misplaced Pages be seen as supporting the view that the first two chapters of Genesis are fictional.

There are editors who are adamant that the word "myth" be the primary descriptor of the first two chapters of Genesis, often for the opposite reason: so that the casual reader will understand those chapters as being non-historical.

Neither side will ever back down, and I think we're all aware of that. But the conflict itself is predicated on an overly terse use of the word. Why leave things vague? Misplaced Pages is not meant to adopt either of the above views, which are both in violation of WP:NPOV. Nor is it intended to "hint" at one point of view or another. And the conflict is easily solved by making it clear that the Genesis creation narrative is a creation myth, but that it's a creation myth in the academic sense of the word. Hence the change from this:

The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible).

to this:

The Genesis creation narrative is the story of the creation of the world as described in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible). It is a creation myth, in the academic sense of the term.

This RfC is solely on the question of this edit. Please comment in the "threaded discussion" space below. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment - Although this does not directly pertain to the edit in question, I wanted to clarify something you stated: the use of myth is not a violation of WP:NPOV, but is in fact supported by said policy, which has an entire section, WP:RNPOV, that directly deals with this. That "myth" not be used at all is a violation of said policy. However, I don't say that with prejudice either for or against the edit in question, but just to clarify that the removal of myth is not a policy-supported option. The clarification that usage of this word is used in the formal sense, however, I think is a valid discussion. - SudoGhost 16:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think your NPOV comment is misguided, but at least your intentions seem correct, and I have a more eloquent suggestion (phrases like "in the academic sense of the term" seem stylistically odd - consider a similar phrase in scientific articles that use the term "theory").

Ideally the article title would be something like Genesis creation myth which would allow us to expand the precise definition of the term creation myth in the very first sentence, for example:

The Genesis creation myth is the symbolic narrative found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis that describes how the world was created.

This simultaneously deals with both sides of this tug-of-war: it clarifies exactly what we mean by creation myth (so as not to confuse readers, or impress upon readers that it is a fictional account which literalists may find offensive) without them having to click another link to find out, and still correctly uses academic terminology. As an added bonus, the article title would be consistent with our articles on other creation myths. 114.78.5.201 (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Your revision looks great 114.78.5.201. I might suggest the removal of the word "symbolic" since many take the narrative to be a literal one. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 18:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to also agree with 114.78.5.201's suggestion, minus the "symbolic" term. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 23:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur, the irony being that this page used to be called Genesis Creation Myth and iirc that was really close to the opening sentence. I like this phrasing and think that the page itself should be moved to Genesis Creation Myth with this new wording. Nformation 23:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I like this suggestion, with the exception that it doesn't include a link to creation myth. I'm not sure if that's ok or not. On one hand, we'd be including creation myth in the title, and thus providing a proper definition of the subject. On the other hand, the lack of a wikilink may be less helpful to readers unfamiliar with the term. It seems appropriate to mention and link creation myth within the body... could we, perhaps, also do this when mentioning the relationship to Mesopotamian creation myths? Then, we would have a concise definition in sentence 1, and a wikilink for readers shortly after. Would that be acceptable for everyone?   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm okay with this proposal if it's acceptable to everyone. I think we can do better, but if this is the most agreeable solution, that's ok.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I had simply assumed that the bolded "creation myth" text would be linked to its respective article, which is what I support doing as well. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 00:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing the lack of wikilink was an oversight, the IP can correct me if I'm wrong. If there are no objections to this in 24 hours I'm going to be WP:BOLD and make the move and the changes. Nformation 01:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually I won't be able to make the move. The page already exists as a redirect and so an admin would have to do it. Nformation 02:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

*Comment-I am totally against placing the POV spin phrase of creation myth into the title of the article, color it any way you want, it is still POV spin directing the reader to the viewpoint that the Genesis creation account is a false tale, but to include it in the title simply moves the POV spin into the title of the article as well as the body, compounding the problem. I think the view of both sides needs to be expressed, anything less is in violation of WP:NPOV and the title of the article is no different than the body in the consideration of this. The original suggested edit is likely the closest we will ever get to adhering to this policy. Willietell (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with 114.78.5.201 on most points. I think "myth" is probably a word to watch in the sense that it lacks precision and may introduce bias, and I'd support using a synonym of some sort. I think Lisa's on the right track, though I like the IP's suggestion better (for the reasons he/she gave). Another possible alternative might be:

The Genesis creation narrative is the story of creation contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible).

This way, story, account, narrative, or some other synonym can be pipe-linked to the creation myth article, without implying a bias to someone who doesn't know the academic definition of myth. As a side note, I think the term "creation myth" should definitely be used later on in the article (as it is) but it's probably not quite right for the first sentence. Hope this helps. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Mythology is one of the two examples given in the policy WP:RNPOV: 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. - SudoGhost 19:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with you, though I would still argue that the word myth needs to be used carefully so as not to mislead a reader who might not know the formal meaning. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm with you 100% on that. "Creation myth" is used to refer to Genesis only once in the article itself, in the lede, and is used in a formal sense, and links to an article explaining exactly what is meant when it is used in that sense. The other uses of the term "creation myth" in the article refer to other creation myths. I cannot speak for any use of the term "myth" or "mythology" as opposed to "creation myth", because I haven't looked into it (and is not, to my understanding, the focus of this RfC), but I believe that every instance of "creation myth" in the article is used carefully, and in the formal sense of the term. - SudoGhost 20:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You obviously know the article better than I do. It sounds like there might be a mild violation of WP:LEAD at issue as well (in that the Lead is supposed to summarize the article, therefore if something isn't in the article, it probably shouldn't be in the Lead either). I don't think that's anything we need to argue about here though...it seems there's enough going on already :-) Anyway, I think everybody agrees on the accuracy of the academic definition of myth in creation myth. Perhaps the question we should be asking is whether or not it is immediately clear to the reader that this definition is the one intended. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Does the term 'creation myth' (not just 'myth') have a non-academic meaning? In my view, there is no reason to treat the word 'myth' in isolation from the phrase 'creation myth' when the link plainly is to the latter. It would would be like linking to Alvin Rouse and then claiming that 'Rouse' is ambiguous. Considering sentence structure, I would much rather the term 'creation myth' be defined within the first sentence rather than split off into a short, second sentence. For example:

The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth – the symbolic narrative of how the world began – contained in the first two chapters ...

-- Black Falcon 17:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Adjwilley for most of it. Note: I've been passively watching this discussion elevate ever since it was started. The word "myth" is definately a word to watch in both 'the sense that it lacks precision' and that it will most likely 'introduce bias'. I may be O.K. with a synonym. Lisa is on the right track, as well as the IP (as far as the reason goes). Adjiwilley's definition, modified by me:

The Genesis creation narrative is the story of creation as presented in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible and Christian Old Testament.

This way, account/narrative/other or some is linked to the creation myth article, without implying a bias to someone who isn't familiar with or does not recognize the "academic definition" of myth. Wekn reven 18:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with User:Adjwilley, User:Wekn reven i susej eht, and 114.78.5.201, et. al. The word myth is probably a "word to watch in the sense that it lacks precision and may introduce bias." I would support the inclusion of any of the revisions suggested by these three named individuals. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 18:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - With props to the proposer for trying to resolve a long-running dispute (in which I'm not involved), I oppose the proposed change as unnecessary and awkward. The current wording uses not simply the term "myth" but the term "creation myth", which is linked to an article which explains exactly what it means. This wording appears to be neutral, verifiable, and simple—just as it should be. That objections continue or recur doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem with the wording. That some readers who haven't been exposed to the term object to it because it contains a word that has other connotations is unfortunate, but they need only follow the link and read some more to learn something new. That is the way WP should be; we ought not pussyfoot around in our wordings because someone might be offended. Incidentally, the term "creation myth" is hardly esoteric; I first encountered it in high school (then subsequently in various university courses in different disciplines). Rivertorch (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

@Rivertorch, Drawing from personal experience, I was first exposed to the academic usage of myth as a freshman in college. That said, I don't think that Misplaced Pages should be written at a college level (nor does this UPI article, which criticizes WP for being written at a college level instead of a 9th grade level). Also, a reader should not have to click on a link to discover what an ambiguous term means. This is partly personal preference, but it's also advice that's been given to me by more experienced editors. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, neither of our personal experiences should directly influence the decision being made here. I mentioned my experience only after reading comments that (to my reading) implied the term "creation myth" is somehow absent from common discourse. I'm well aware that it's far from universally understood—even at postsecondary education levels—but I don't think that means we need to clutter up article ledes by defining such terms every time one pops up. That is the beauty of WP's internal links: one term leads to another which leads to another, and before you know it, you've learned something. (I mean "you" in the general sense, of course.) In any event, please note that the relevant term (as I noted above) is not just "myth" but "creation myth", which carries no other meaning aside from the one intended here. Rivertorch (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment WP:RNPOV states "articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader". The term itself is being used correctly and so meets the policy, however it is causing unnecessary offense and is misleading the reader as per the proposal and must be amended to observe the second half of the phrase. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The wording is "...use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense" not "...use these words only in their formal sense and avoid causing unnecessary offense" Using the proper use of the term is what avoids the unnecessary offense. Using the term correctly is what observes the second half of the phrase. By using the term only in the academic sense, in accordance with what reliable sources show, and linking to the article that explains exactly what is meant by the term, we try to minimize any potential offense caused. - SudoGhost 19:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the lesson in prepositions. The problem is that in this case, the use of the term is causing unnecessary offense and is misleading the reader therefore the policy is not being adhered to correctly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The use of the term is necessary, per WP:RNPOV, it is impossible for what is necessary to also be unnecessary. Using the term in the formal sense is what avoids causing unnecessary offense. However, the term must be used per WP:NPOV. This is necessary. What is unnecessary is using it in an informal way, to suggest the informal meaning of the term, thereby offending people without reason. This is what is meant by "use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." The word is being used in its formal sense, therefore it avoids causing unnecessary offense. - SudoGhost 20:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, WP is not censored. I know you've read that link a dozen or so times, maybe 5 times from me, so it's really time to drop the offense angle on this. There are literally hundreds of millions of Muslims who would be offended by our article on Muhammad because it violates a deeply held religious tradition by showing depictions of the prophet but at the end of the Arbcom case the images stand. Secondly, in no way does it mislead the reader. To "mislead" would mean that the word were being used in a context to insinuate something that isn't true - you're conflating the fact that some people may not understand the term with the sentence being misleading. Genesis is a creation myth, this is a fact. Stating that fact is not misleading in the least. You have still yet to give a single policy based reason as to why the term shouldn't be included and ignored the fact that the arguments that you make do not matter on WP at all because offense is not part of our decision making process with very, very few caveats that do not apply to this case. Nformation 01:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment While I believe that the lead needs a lot of work to comply with the WP:LEAD guideline, I think the first sentence (first three sentences, actually) are fine as they are. I understand that some people may not realize that the word "myth" has multiple meanings (Myth as in "Bigfoot is a myth" vs Myth as in core religious narrative) and take it as a pejorative description, but I don't think we should rephrase it because of their misconceptions. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment A few editors have said that 'myth' is a "word to avoid". This assertion runs directly and explicitly counter to policy. WP:NPOV says "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of...concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at words to avoid." Mythology is one of the two examples used at WP:RNPOV in the above example, and words to avoid has no entry for myth. The claim that we should avoid using myth is spurious, and counter to the exact wording of NPOV, and even if "words to avoid" did address it, the manual of style does not trump one of the five pillars.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a note: the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted says, "Misplaced Pages articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." I think a problem with the sentence is that it's not immediately clear to an uneducated reader that there is a formal academic definition of myth. I also believe that a reader shouldn't have to constantly follow links to other articles to discover what ambiguous words mean. Though I agree with using the term creation myth in the article, I think the word myth should be used with care, especially in the first sentence of the Lead.

I don't remember if I've ever commented on this article before, but I do remember seeing a RFC here not too long ago. It would be nice if both sides could give a little and agree on something that will be stable. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If it isn't clear to the reader what is meant by the word, they are able to click the term, as it is a wikilink, which provides an "instant pathway to a location within the project that is likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand." - SudoGhost 20:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It won't help. I have shown that several times. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

@Adjwilley, that is correct; that first sentence says we should use mythology "only in its formal sense", which we are doing. The following sentence says that we should not avoid using it out of "concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings". The argument that readers may not understand we're using the formal sense runs counter to that policy.

@Walter, you've shown several times that readers remove "creation myth", but it's been shown to you several times that this behavior is normal and does not influence consensus or the weight of sources. If it did, we'd need to change Age of the universe to say it might be 6,000 years old. That article gets changed far more than this one.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please just read what I've written. You're answering a question that is not an issue. The issue is that while the phrase purports to be unoffensive, it isn't. No amount of reasoning will change that fact. I am not asking for the term to be removed. I am stating that we have to change the way the sentence is written to avoid offence and continuing edit wars over the term. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have, Walter. You're still asserting that readers changing the article against consensus should influence our coverage. It shouldn't. You're still asserting that the term being 'offensive' should influence our coverage. It shouldn't. We are following policy to the letter, which indicates the term may be offensive, and so we should use it only in its formal sense, and not avoid it when appropriate. In theory, I don't object to changing the wording for clarity, but no proposal thus far (including this one) has been acceptable. This wording, like others, attempts to push one of the singular defining characteristics of the subject out of the definition, and adds unnecessary and confusing wording to boot. All this when our current wording is explicitly supported by policy. I mean seriously... it's the example NPOV uses to demonstrate policy. It's not that I haven't read your replies, Walter; it's that you haven't presented a policy-based objection, or a proposal which doesn't suffer from unnecessary problems.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Jess, take a look at the proposal above by 114.78.5.201 and my addendum to it, I think it's more concise than anything else that has been proposed thus far. Nformation 23:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I was avoiding that thread while I mulled it over. I've responded now. That may be our best option for the time being. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

@Walter: You've shown nothing, all you've done is make assertions without any sort of reasoning or appeal to policy and you've ignored every instance of people pointing out to you that you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting policy. All that matters here is what the sources say; that's the whole point of NPOV, that our views as editors are not inserted into the article. Like it or not, the academic sources (which are what WP uses, like it or not) are very explicit in their use of the term. as Jess pointed out, this word is the word used in the policy to demonstrate the policy. Your argument is essentially WP:IJDLI. Nformation 01:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I respectfully disagree. And out of respect for the proposal will stop arguing with the cabal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note The OP for this thread, Lisa (talk, has asked editors to look at two possible ways of working "myth" into the opening of the lead. She is not suggesting that the word be dropped. I think we should restrict comments to her proposal. PiCo (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, PiCo, for keeping us on topic. After reading through the comments above, I think there's a fair consensus against Lisa's specific wording, though I think there have been a few alternate suggestions that merit discussion. I'd like to see this discussion move forward, and I think an important question to discuss is: "Does the current wording make it clear that the word 'myth' is being used in an academic sense?" Perhaps Lisa, or an uninvolved editor, could create a subsection for that discussion, where if editors disagree, they can discuss how to fix the sentence so that it is clear. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - My only reservation is about the clause "in the academic sense of the term." The page linked to by the term seems, to me, to use only the academic sense of the term, so the clause is seemingly redundant. Also, personally, I am myself unaware of the phrase "creation myth" being used in any sense but the academic sense, so the clause seems to almost be trying to dissociate itself from the relevant content, and I can't see a good reason for such extraordinary measures to be taken. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support. Suggested wording is clearer to a general audience, but too verbose. Is there a way we can say this in less words? Here's one suggestion, borrowing from the lede of creation myth:

The Genesis creation narrative is a creation myth (a symbolic narrative of how the world began) contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible).

I personally believe the Genesis narrative to be a myth in the colloquial sense of fictional as well, but would like to avoid further bloodshed over the issue, and be clear about the meaning of terms we use. Dcoetzee 03:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - There is abundant evidence—anthropological, archeological, geological, cosmological—that the Genesis 'creation narrative' is a myth in both the colloquial sense and the academic sense. Many religious people acknowledge that the account can only be regarded as 'allegory', which is essentially a euphemism for 'myth'. List of creation myths lists quite a few articles that no one minds referring to as myths. The assertion that the biblical creation myth can't be called a 'myth' is merely argumentum ad populum.

Misplaced Pages is not censored, and does not need to employ euphemisms to avoid upsetting people who believe something that is ostensibly not real. See also Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as the specific RFC request, the former wording is suitable. The suggested alternative wording sounds more like a disclaimer with a provisional definition of the term. This is unnecessary, unless all creation myth articles are treated the same way.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Unknown-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• High-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Judaism articles
• Unknown-importance Judaism articles
• B-Class Bible articles
• Top-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• B-Class Mythology articles
• Top-importance Mythology articles
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment