Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:20, 26 April 2014

Template:Pbneutral

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archives

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

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

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

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: RM, Creation according to Genesis -> Genesis creation myth, Moved, 27 January 2010, Discussion RM, Genesis creation myth -> Creation according to Genesis, No consensus, 16 February 2010, Discussion RM, Genesis creation myth -> Creation according to Genesis, No consensus, 25 March 2010, Discussion RM, Genesis creation myth -> Biblical Creation, No consensus, 4 April 2010, Discussion RM, Genesis creation myth -> Genesis creation narrative, Moved, 20 April 2010, Discussion RM, Genesis creation narrative -> Genesis creation myth, No consensus, 4 March 2012, Discussion RM, Genesis creation narrative -> Creation story in Genesis, No consensus, 4 March 2012, Discussion RM, Genesis creation narrative -> Genesis creation myth, No consensus, 28 September 2012, Discussion RM, Genesis creation narrative -> Creation in Genesis, Not moved, 1 February 2013, Discussion RM, Genesis creation narrative -> Genesis creation myth, Not moved, 4 February 2013, Discussion RM, Genesis creation narrative -> Genesis creation myth, No consensus, 22 January 2014, Discussion

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.

INCONSISTENCIES

On the two narratives of the Creation Story (Gen. 1:1-2:4a and 2:4b-25), please notice the following inconsistencies: a. In the first narrative, man was created on the sixth day where man the last of God's creation. On the second narrative, notice that man was first to be created. b. In the first narrative, all other creatures (birds, fishes, animals, plants, etc.) created before the creation of man where man created at the same time; both Adam and Eve while in the second narrative, note that Adam was first to be created then followed by the garden in Eden and then by the animal creatures. When none proved to be the suitable partner for man, it was only then that Eve was created where Eve the last to be created. c. In the second narrative, the LORD GOD used the possessive pronoun I ("I will make a suitable partner for man") while in the first narrative, when GOD created man, GOD said "Let US create man..." d. Note that in the first narrative, God created all things using His word (Let there be...) while in the second narrative, Lord God created all creatures including man "out of the (clay of the) ground". e. In the first narrative, everyday of creation was always concluded with the phrase "God saw (his creation) that it was good" while on the second narrative, the Lord God said "IT IS NOT GOOD for man to be alone" considering it is He himself who created the man that is alone. Believe it or not, it is was a mistake. It then brings us to inquiring whether or not the creation of EVE in the original plan when the narrative suggests that had God did not mistakenly created man to be lonely, Eve could not have been created. Note further that the first choice of the Lord God to be the partner of man was animals. Upon notice of man's loneliness, God created different animals (2:19)and the purpose of their creation is to present them to Adam for man to choose which of those animals he may like be his suitable partner. Eve was actually the second choice after Adam rejected animals. Hence the question again, does God know what he was doing? It seems the creation process a matter of TRIAL AND ERROR. And true enough, EVE is a product of ERROR. e. Bible scholars are one in the agreement that the second narrative was written way ahead of the first narrative. Gen 2 (the second story of creation) is therefore the original creation story. But why was it written A POSTERIORI the first narrative. Please consider the same parallel confusion of sequence in the first two books of the New Testament. Mark is an older Gospel than Matthew but chronology seem to follow the same confusion between the two stories of creation in the book of Genesis.

IRREGULARITIES

a. On the first day of creation, God created LIGHT. On the fourth day, God separated the light that guides the day from the light that guides the night and all other stars and heavenly bodies. Question is; when did God created the SUN? Was it on the first or the fourth day. If it's the latter, what light did He create on the first day? b. It is not correct to call the garden Eden. The correct text states (2:8) "LORD GOD planted a garden in Eden". Eden is the place where the garden was planted and not the garden itself. The narrative even mentioned the location of the garden being "East of Eden". c. Note that in the 2:5, it was stated "the Lord God had not sent RAIN upon the earth". Question: when was rain created? d. Please check the absurd narrative of Chapter 6 about the Nephilim. SONS OF GOD marrying daughters of man and producing sons who were the heroes of the past and the popular men?" Huhhh? e. It seems disenchanting to consider God a SUPREME ALL POWERFUL BEING but possesses the human frailty of REGRET; (6:6) And the LORD was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. f. NOTE: GEN 1, the creator was GOD. In GEN 2 and 3, it was the LORD GOD. In 4 to 50, its the LORD.

112.200.2.96 (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

We can do something with sourced criticism, but not much with original or unsourced biblical criticism. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Under the sun, moon, and stars

Regarding this:

On Day Four God puts "lights" in the firmament, but the Hebrew word ''ma'or'' means literally "lamps", underlining the status of the cosmos as God's temple.{{sfn|Walsh|2001|p=37 (fn.5)}}

We previously had a literal description of the text in most English translations; that on Day Four God puts lights in the firmament. This is cited to a good source. Also, the actual text mentions stars here, which we did not have. Now comes Ccasci who wants to insert a sentence:

In most mainstream versions of the bible, the sun, the moon, and the stars are literally created on this day.

With the claim in an edit summary that it's so obvious that it's not mentioned in any sources. This is problematic in a number of ways, some of which have by now been fixed by ordinary editing. First of all, I have not seen a version of the bible in any language including the Vulgate and the Septuagint which say anything about the moon and the sun. They all say a big light and a little light, which is what our first sentence about day four is talking about. All versions also mention stars explicitly. There was previously no mention of this. The sentence currently reads:

In most versions of the Bible, the sun, the moon, and the stars are created on this day.

It is still uncited to a source. If we're going to say it, I don't think it's out of line to ask for a source, since I can't find a single version of the bible that says that the sun and moon were created on the fourth day. It's natural to assume that sun and moon are meant by big light and little light, but without a source it's nevertheless original research. Furthermore, if the sun and the moon are what's meant by lights, what does this sentence add to the sourced sentence that precedes it? Finally, the "most" here is pure speculation without a source. If "most" relies on some editors checking a bunch of versions of the bible it's original research. Thus I propose that we (a) find a source for this claim, (b) delete it, or (c) delete it but add "stars" to the sentence that precedes it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

What about replacing "the sun, the moon" with "a 'big light' and a 'little light'" in the sentence? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure that's fine with me, except then what does the sentence add to the sentence that precedes it? Maybe we should just add size of lights and stars to that sentence and then add a sentence about the purpose of the lights, e.g. to separate the day from the night and so forth. I have no problem with more detail. I just have a problem with people making stuff up without sources by reading the text. I also don't think we need a secondary source for what the text says, because the text actually says it. It doesn't say anything about the sun and the moon, so we need a source for that. It's always a mistake to assume that there's an obvious literal meaning for ancient language. It's hard enough with contemporary language.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, or we could leave the first sentence as it is, change the second to include big light and little light, leave stars in there, and add a clause about why there's a big light and a little light. That might flow better.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I removed the sentence. As I said, it's factually false. Second, the part that's not factually false is original research (the "most versions" part). Since everybody's super-busy rehashing the move discussion I thought I'd point out my deletion and ask that, per WP:BURDEN, people who want to add this sentence back either find a source for it or else revise it so that the text itself is a reliable source for what it says, per above discussion. Thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it. This is actually almost a quote from one of the Bible. If you actually want a quote from one or many versions, consider it done. 3rd party rule is not the only rule. You cannot explain or document anything without saying what it is. This is not original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccasci (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Name one version of the bible it's "almost a quote from." Furthermore, it's the "most versions" that's original research. How is it not unless you have a source saying it?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see your logic, trying to be difficult, but why is it so controversial? Less controversial articles will not pass this scrutiny - if you know you can make it go right, editors will usually let it be and slightly flexible about it. I don't understand why you say this factually incorrect when you can just lookup most Genesis 1:16. If god created something to rule the day, we must be able to see it, a great light, and common sense tell me that it's the sun, same for the moon. There's no debate about the stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccasci (talk • contribs) 21:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Uh, right? Everyone knows what verse we're talking about. It doesn't say sun or moon. It says lights, a big one and a little one. It's like this in the original Hebrew and we have a sourced sentence right before that explaining why that is. It's an essential distinction because no translation I can find chooses to translate ma'or as sun and moon. This is preserved in the Septuagint, which uses "φωστηρας" (lights), in the Vulgata Clementina, which uses "luminaria," and by Luther, who uses "Lichter," not to mention every English version I looked at. Do you think all the scholars who've translated this over the last two millenia didn't have the words "sun" and "moon" in their languages? Also, your tacking that material on at the end of the paragraph makes the paragraph incoherent and repetitive to no advantage. As it stands it talks about the lights, moves on to the command to the earth to bring forth stuff, and then has your bit of original research tacked on. If you're so hell-bent on adding something, why don't you work with people on this page to come up with something that actually adds to the article instead of degrading it?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

And compare Genesis 15:12: Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, terror and great darkness fell upon him., translated in the Septuagint with "ἡλίου" (helios in an inflected form), in the Vulgate with "sol," and by Luther as "Sonne." It's not like they didn't have a word for sun, you know. Your interpretation is original research and is distorting the meaning of the text, as it explained clearly at the beginning of the paragraph you're editing. Can you explain what you're trying to accomplish here?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that the sun, the moon and the stars is in, why can't we quote Genesis 1:16 while quotes everywhere else? As a separate thought, would it be a reliable source if the author is of a particular faith, studied theology in that faith and wrote only about that faith?Ccasci (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggested move

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

Genesis creation narrative → Genesis creation myth – The last suggested move was no consensus, but we should still keep discussing this.

Simple argument:

No one denies that this particular story is a creation myth (it's in our lede).

No one denies that almost all other stories about creation myths in Misplaced Pages are titled "creation myth" (do a search).

Therefore, this page should be called Genesis creation myth. jps (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support for neutrality and consistency with other creation myth articles, myth is the correct academic term.Theroadislong (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I'm a follower of one of the religions that accepts Genesis as divinely inspired, from a region and sect both a bit notorious for rallying in defense of it, and I even agree. Aside from the points OP gave, how many sources call it a "narrative" instead of a myth, really? Aside from narrative being inaccurate, it's undue weight. Then there's connotation. "Narrative" sounds like a story that no one takes seriously, while "myth" denotes a story that some people accept in some form or another for religious or pseudo-religious reasons. No one accepts Genesis without at least a quasi-religious reason, even if they're ardently opposed to organized religion.

"But 'myth' is commonly misunderstood to mean something false" tends to be a common counter argument, but this is an encyclopedia, not a repository for common idiocy. We don't use theory in place of hypothesis as common people do, and we don't dumb down medical terms but link to them and expect our readers to learn from those links. Why should we treat religious matters differently, dumbing them down so some hick who probably hasn't even read Genesis doesn't have to think more than is necessary to keep breathing during a Duck Dynasty marathon? Ian.thomson (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for crying out loud. Your premise is utterly false. YES, plenty of people deny that this particular story is a creation myth. YES, plenty of other creation stories use some other formulation. In fact, the VAST MAJORITY (see figures below) use a different formulation. Typically, only when no other formulation exists in reliable sources does it default to the "creation myth" formulation. This argument is dead before it starts. Please don't waste our time again. HokieRNB 17:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose A myth is a story, which can be told in many ways by many tellers. Cf. OED: "A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon." A narrative is a specific text relating a story. Cf. OED: "An account of a series of events, facts, etc., given in order and with the establishing of connections between them; a narration, a story, an account." This article is about the specific narration of the Judeo-Christian creation myth given in the book of Genesis. It is not about the myth per se but about the specific telling of the myth in the book. Therefore it's about the narrative rather than about the myth and the title should reflect that. This distinction is more clear in traditions which made the transition from oral transmission of myths to written more recently, where there may be many narratives of the same myth, each potentially worthy of an article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

If that were true, then how come Judeo-Christian creation myth redirects here? Rwenonah (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

How should I know?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support per NPOV and to maintain an encyclopedic voice. It would be a title consistent with the content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on how you see this title as not being (A) neutral, (B) encyclopedic, or (C) consistent with the article content? From your reasons, one could just as easily score this as Oppose. HokieRNB 20:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A) NPOV says we present things as they are presented in the academic community. B) The Genesis creation myth is extensively discussed as a myth in academia not as a narrative. An encyclopedia does not refer to something by other than the term of reference recognized in academia. C) The content of the article clearly presents the subject as a creation myth. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I think "Genesis creation story" is more common than either. Plus are you sure, when you're counting uses, that you're catching a distinction the author may be purposely making between myth and narrative?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The point is that common language should be use rather than academic use. Since myth has a non-neutral meaning in common English, it must not be used where it will cause offense to many readers. Narrative is neutral in this respect and non controversial. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no such policy about excluding content that will cause offence to some. Or will you be arguing that we remove all images of Mohamed from Misplaced Pages? HiLo48 (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• From what I've read, there is a huge gap between the scholarly view of the Bible texts and the Christian view of the Bible texts. To the scholar, the Bible is just another manuscript. To the Christian, the Bible is a collection of manuscripts written by people who were inspired by God to write, so they perceive the Bible to be the very Word of God. Although there are some who try to straddle that gap, it is virtually impossible to find suitable neutral language that will please both sides. I recommend that both views be presented separately in the article with, perhaps, the scholarly view first followed by the believers view. That way the full article would be neutral in that it provides the views of both sides. And perhaps the title might simply be The Genesis Creation. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

If myth has a non-neutral meaning, who can we use it for the other eleven articles titled creation myth? Titling Genesis differently shows bias.Rwenonah (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support — The "commonname" objections to this rename are wrong, in my opinion. The narrative and the myth are, if we're being strict, different topics. The narrative is the specific literary instantiation of the myth in the Book of Genesis. The narrative is a sub-topic to the topic of the myth. This article covers the whole topic of the myth, and so should be given that name. Just as if we had an article entitled "Holland" which talked about the whole Netherlands, and we didn't have an article entitled "Netherlands". That article should be renamed "Netherlands". --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to make that point more poignant: If I search Google Books for "Netherlands" I get "About 62,600,000 results" . If I search for "Holland" I get "About 70,300,000 results" . That doesn't mean that "Holland" is the most common name! It just means that the term is used more. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting, you use the same reasoning as I do but reach the opposite conclusion. How do you see this article as being about the myth rather than the narrative? It's shot through with specific discussions of word choice and other textual elements. It seems to me that it's entirely about the narrative itself.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It covers the narrative specifically, but also covers elements qua myth, for example the section on Mesopotamian influence. The article discusses the differences and relation between J and P. But J and P existed before the Book of Genesis existed, so the article cannot be entirely about the narrative itself. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Surely it does, but so briefly and only in specific relation to the text of Genesis itself. In fact there's less on sources and influences in this article than there are in many articles on specific texts. For instance, Chinatown (1974 film) has tons of stuff about William Mulholland and the Owens Valley, but we're not going to rename that The Modern Los Angeles Creation Myth. If it didn't have a title already, though, and it were the only source for the story we could certainly call it The Modern Los Angeles Creation Narrative. (I hope the example isn't too far afield; I wanted to pick a fictional one for various reasons). I do think it would be possible to have an article on the myth, but this just doesn't seem to be it, or at least not yet.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You know, kidding about movies aside, it occurs to me that your point about the article's discussion of J and P actually weighs in favor of its being about the specific narrative in Genesis. If you're talking about a myth as opposed to a narrative your focus is on the content of the different narratives and the elements they have in common and in which they differ. If you're talking about a narrative of a myth based on previous narratives of the myth you talk about the influence that those previous narratives had on the text under discussion, which is exactly what's done in this article. I really think your own argument supports the opposite of your conclusion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. This was discussed three months ago, and soundly rejected. Nothing has changed. Calidum 04:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

True, the conservative religious POV pushers are still making use of our systemic bias to try to get their way. It's hardly ethical, or good Christian behaviour, and doesn't help Misplaced Pages at all. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. As pointed out above, "Genesis creation story" is the easy winner in terms of common name. That being the case, this proposal strikes me as a step in the wrong direction, i.e. "story" is closer to "narrative" on the lexical spectrum than it is to "myth." How unrelated creation stories are titled is really neither here nor there. The idea that we should retitle this article because of Ainu creation myth is letting the tail wag the dog. One leg at a time (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

We should retitle the article so that all religions are treated the same. "Common name" is inevitably fed by our systemic bias. We should all care about that. Do you? HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

All religions are not the same. This has nothing to do with truth or falsity of their beliefs or relative numbers of believers. It has to do with the fact that not all religions are institutional, not all religions have fixed dogmas, not all religions have written traditions, not all religions have institutionally fixed texts of their written traditions, not all religions have their own scholars producing scholarly versions of their texts, not all religions have scholars external to the religion producing critical revisions of their written texts, and so on. The words we use in titles must reflect the subjects of articles, which are determined by about a zillion factors that you seem determined to ignore because you think all religions are the same. Some religions are only even called religions by people who don't believe in them and they're not called anything by people who do believe in them and it's almost certainly biased to even call them religions because it involves imposing categories that are only meaningful in complex cultures onto the social structures of simple cultures. Your insistences that "all religions are the same" is more deeply biased than you seem to have even the first inkling of.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@One leg at a time:: I agree with your conclusion, but not with your reasoning. I think it's a mistake to think there's a one-dimensional spectrum with "story" on one end and "myth" on the other with "narrative" in between. In the case of this particular text, I am reasonably sure that in the scholarly literature both "story" and "myth" refer to the elements of the Judeo-Christian explanation of creation free from any specific text narrating them whereas "narrative" usually refers to the specific text. I don't really have any way of checking this intuition, though.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. For all the reasons that have been stated before, as recently as a few months ago, and in the discussions that resulted in not retitling it in March 2012, September 2012, February 2013, and January 2014. It's clearly too soon to bring it up again. And the broken record of "treat all religions the same" carries no weight in this argument. Of the four largest living religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism), Islam has a section titled Islamic creation narrative, Hinduism has an article titled Hiranyagarbha and Buddhism has an article titled Aggañña Sutta. Having a redirect from Judeo-Christian creation myth is completely sufficient. Ἀλήθεια 10:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support It's systemic bias to treat one religion differently to others over fears others will misunderstand if we use the correct term. Adam Cuerden 22:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support I agree that this is an example of systemic bias and note that it may be that we need 2 articles. Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support for consistency and neutrality, also agreeing that perhaps more than one article may be called for here.John Carter (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support as per the norm in neutral reliable sources as seen in the section "Reliable source round-up" below. -- Moxy (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose because no compelling new argument has been raised. I stand by my arguments from previous move proposals: (i) the term "narrative" is accurate, neutral and common in sources, (ii) the article is about a text as much as a myth, (iii) the popular meaning of myth cannot be ignored, just like the popular meaning of "theory" isn't, and (iv) per this Ngram, the current title is more common. Srnec (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an area where I cannot assume good faith. I don't believe you would find any argument against your faith compelling. You are dishonestly playing with words. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and numbers quoted below. Evan  17:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The numbers are simply part of our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support because a myth is a myth, of course, of course. To single out any one retelling of the story as something else while calling others "myths" (especially when there are previous versions labeled as myths from which elements of this myth were blatently copied) is extolling one myth over the rest, and is not neutral. Torquemama007 (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You say "a myth is a myth, of course, of course" "but "myth" is a word and like many words it has a variety of meanings. Here is an article in Scientific American magazine. Note that the Scientific American article has the word "myth" in its title. Note the implication of the term "myth" in that title. Its implication is that of "falsity". I think this is what some of us are trying to avoid. Bus stop (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head. Myth - an idea or story that is believed by many people but that may not be true. Is perfect for the title - are people here suggestion this is not what this is - some believe some dont. A narrative is generally an account of events and or experiences. Are we suggestion to our readers someone was there to recoded these events? Dont think anyone thinks this - do they? -- Moxy (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. First of all, I don't see any new arguments being presented that haven't already been discussed in previous move proposals. I strongly object to the tactic of proposing page moves often enough until one gets the result that one wants. In any case, discussing this topic once a year is enough - there should be some sort of restriction on how often the same page move can be proposed. As for the actual move, "narrative" is a neutral term, and the thing we are dealing with is unquestionably a narrative. Under those conditions, we should opt for the common name, which has clearly been demonstrated to use the word "narrative". I don't think the naming of other pages is all that relevant (they haven't had the level of discussion that has been carried on here), and I note that Fon creation myth and Kaluli creation myth have "creation story" in the lead, so it doesn't seem strictly necessary that they have the word "myth" in their titles. I also accept the argument below that "myth" goes better with a people group, while "narrative" goes better with a text. And this article is about the Genesis text, not about the beliefs of Judeo-Christians, whoever they might be. StAnselm (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the arguments have been presented before. I could equally say that, so have yours. And yours don't convince me. Given your self declaration of religious faith on your User page, and your already demonstrated appalling behaviour in unilaterally closing the thread earlier, it's obvious that you cannot possibly approach this topic objectively. Your opinion carries no weight at all here now. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

List of articles titled "creation myth"

(This subsection was labeled "for those too dumb or lazy to do their own search" before it was refactored by Rwenonah). Here is the complete (as of 17:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)) list of Misplaced Pages articles that use "creation myth" in the formulation of their title:

1. Serer creation myth
2. Ancient Egyptian creation myths
3. Mesoamerican creation myths
4. Sumerian creation myth
5. Chinese creation myth
6. Mandé creation myth
7. Ainu creation myth
8. Japanese creation myth
9. Fon creation myth
10. Tungusic creation myth
11. Kaluli creation myth

At approximately the same time, there are 107 pages in the Category:Creation myths. Eleven out of one hundred seven. Approximately 10%. HokieRNB 17:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not a fair comparison as a good number of the articles in that category are related to myths, but not the myths themselves.--McSly (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Which makes it a perfectly fair comparison, since this article is related to what academics refer to as a "creation myth", but it's not only about that. It's primarily about the text that makes up roughly the first two chapters of Genesis, which is what many refer to as the "creation narrative" in the Bible. Outside the world of biblical studies, many just call it the "creation story". Both of those would be apt titles for this article. HokieRNB 19:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

So how is this article different from a "creation myth" as described by academics? Or, in other words, what makes this article different from the above 11? Rwenonah (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

For starters, the other 11 all have the same formulation of . "Genesis" is not a people group, but rather a canonical text. "Genesis" cannot have a creation myth. The Hebrew people can. HokieRNB 19:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, most of the others describe oral creation myths, which don't have canonical textual instantiations to write articles about (the Sumerian one is an exception to this) or else they describe multiple myths, like Mesoamerican and Chinese, rather than particular texts. I think really the only example on that list parallel to this one is the Sumerian one. So we have one with each name, but notwithstanding, "narrative" is correct.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The articles acknowledges that A this article is the creation myth of two religious groups and B is a creation myth. Hence this article is after all about the creation myth of particular group, and is not different from the above versions. Japanese, Ancient Egyptian and Sumerian all have written versions, btw. Obviously, then, titling Genesis differently shows bias, when even the article says it is a creation myth and not a chapter of a book. Rwenonah (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I already acknowledged that the Sumerian one is parallel to this case. The Japanese one is not because although there is one myth there are two narratives and the article is about the myth itself rather than specifically about either of the narratives. The Egyptian one is not because there are multiple myths and the article is about all of them. Like I said, that leaves us with the only comparison being the Sumerian one. Personally I think that should be retitled to Eridu Genesis narrative, but that's not the subject of the discussion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support It's systemic bias to treat one religion differently to others over fears others will misunderstand if we use the correct term. Adam Cuerden 22:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per Adam's motivation. "Narrative" is such an obvious weasel word. Peter 22:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

List of articles titled "creation narrative"

1. Genesis creation myth. 1 out of 107. Less than 1%. Rwenonah (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

List of articles titled "sukta"

1. Purusha sukta
2. Nasadiya Sukta
3. Nadistuti sukta
4. Śrī Sūkta
5. Narayana sukta
6. Devi sukta
7. Manyu sukta

This exercise could go on and on, but it doesn't really change the point that this statement - "No one denies that almost all other stories about creation myths in Misplaced Pages are titled "creation myth" (do a search)." - is categorically false. And it would seem to me that an argument that is based on an utterly false premise can be summarily dismissed.

A sadly pointless exercise due to our systemic bias

Obviously all religions should be treated equally on Misplaced Pages, with all creation stories called myths. But a hard core of mostly Christian adherents here will continue to behave in un-Christian ways to prevent it happening. I'm not sure what they think their god will do to them if they allow Misplaced Pages to do its job properly and fairly. Some will now attack me for not assuming good faith, but masses of evidence I have seen here in the past, and even up above in this thread, would make me a hypocrite if I pretended to do so. HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

And I sincerely thank StAnselm, a user who openly and clearly declares their conservative Christian position on their User page, for virtually instantly proving my point by unilaterally attempting to close down this discussion immediately after I made that post. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it was your post that prompted me to do it - you said that this was a pointless exercise, and I agree. StAnselm (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It's obvious that our reasons for thinking that are very different. I believe we should be discussing this. I suspect you would rather we didn't. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It's been a while since I read through this silliness; has there been a compelling argument against WP:COMMONNAME yet? Evan  23:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Given that it's not obvious to me what result WP:COMMONNAME would deliver, I don't know what your point is. The common name in countries with strong Christian advocacy and scholarship such as the USA would not be an objective measure. Otherwise we would have to find some strong traditional Australian Aboriginal sources to discuss how we should name their creation stories. HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you know what my point is, HiLo. You and I have been through this before. COMMONNAME states that, "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Misplaced Pages generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title." Directly following that quoted text, COMMONNAME states that this holds true even when the common name is not neutral. Now, I don't see how anyone can say that "narrative" is not neutral—in its only extant form it is a single literary narrative—but you seem to think it is. COMMONNAME is policy, not a guideline, so it is up to you and those who agree with you to demonstrate why it is a good idea for us not to follow policy in this case.

So, how exactly do the sources stack up? Well, "Genesis creation narrative" gets 276 results at Google Scholar. "Genesis creation myth" gets slightly more than half that number. The numbers are somewhat closer using Google as a whole (293,000 for "narrative", 232,000 for "myth"). Google Books gets 8,320 hits for "narrative", 3,870 for "myth". Anyone with an EBSCO log-in is welcome to check as well: I got 18 results for "creation myth" and 50 for "narrative".

Please understand: I am not denying that there are multiple sources underlying the Genesis creation narrative; I am not denying that those sources bear witness to mythological traditions going back to Neolithic Mesopotamia; I am not denying that the Genesis creation narrative(s) as they now exist are myths in the most meaningful sense of that term. What I am denying is that "Genesis creation myth" is the common name for the topic we are discussing. Evan  17:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

How about if we move it to Genesis narration of the Judeo-Christian creation myth? That would be accurate and use both words. Or if we want to go Hollywood we could call it Judeo-Christian creation myth: The Genesis narrative.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Far too complicated. Just treat all religious creation stories the same. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"Too complicated" is not policy-based reasoning. "All religious creation stories" are not the same because some are solely transmitted orally so that versions vary wildly in the retelling, some are solely transmitted orally by professional transmitters so that versions don't vary wildly, some are transmitted orally and recorded textually by anthropologists, who may or may not collate various oral versions to produce more "average" narrative versions or less "average" multiple versions preserving distinctions, sometimes there are multiple anthropologists who do this, complicating the matter further. Sometimes the believers themselves invent literacy and write down their own texts, sometimes this causes oral versions to vanish and sometimes it does not. Sometimes scholars study written texts created by literate believers and produce new texts based on scholarship that are still narratives of the myths involved but distinctly different from religiously approved canonical versions; this happens e.g. with the Koran. Sometimes the believers themselves invent scholarship and do scholarly collations and revisions of their own pre-scholarly written versions of their own oral traditions. This is what happened with Genesis. It's probably unique in that regard. You act like there are a bunch of fixed religions (already a mistake) and each fixed religion has a fixed creation myth that everyone in the religion agrees to (also a mistake) and that we should treat them as all on a par. Your conclusion would indeed be true if your premises were true, but your premises are wildly wrong. You think this discussion hinges on belief vs. non-belief, but it does not. Anyone who thinks belief or non-belief is relevant on either side of the argument colossally misunderstands what the issues are.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the "single narrative" claim

Read the Documentary hypothesis article, which is pretty much introductory in Biblical criticism and is taught in any seminary worth a damn. Genesis consists of the Priestly creation myth (Genesis 1) and the Jahwist creation myth (Genesis 2). The combination of the two resulted in a new creation myth. The one text contains at least three myths, not one. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, so this article isn't actually about a creation myth. It's about a specific narrative text. So it should be called GC narrative, right? The J and the P articles could be called J creation myth and P creation myth respectively, and an article that talks about the myth resulting from the merger independent of the text in the book of Genesis could be called G creation myth. I don't see how your point, which is completely valid, supports changing the title of this article, if that's what it's meant to do.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No... One of the arguments for the current title is that it's a monolithic and set narrative, when it isn't. It's multiple narratives of the same underlying myth. The only reason to include "narrative" in the title is if it is "Narratives of the Genesis creation myth." If we continue to call this the "Genesis creation narrative," we need to retitle the Sumerian and Japanese creation myth articles (and probably others) to "creation narratives," because they have written versions as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

And if this is about the reconciled text, this article should be merged with (expurgating if necessary) the Book of Genesis article to prevent it from bring a POV fork, and a new Genesis creation myth article should be started from scratch instead of redirecting here. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Only noting that you seem to be assuming (maybe correctly, I dunno) that the variations all still qualify as the same "myth"? Is the word "myth" regularly used that way? Honestly reqesting clarification of how the word "myth" is most regularly used here. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The argument set forth by alf laylah wa laylah earlier using the Oxford English Dictionary implied that a myth is the underlying story beneath different narratives (and vice versa, each narrative is a presentation of a given myth). To be honest, I'm not entirely for that (taken to its logical conclusion, all creation stories are narratives of the same ur-myth, which ignores many unique elements). I merely bring up the multiple narratives to point out that even if we stick with Genesis, we're dealing with multiple narratives of the same myth, according to the definition set forth of both by the OED. In one, God's rather transcendent, efficient, and egalitarian towards gender. In the other, God takes oddly specific amounts of time to do stuff and arguably sets up a ranking between genders. They are different. Then the attempts to reconcile the two as one work results in various interpretations, including the first as an introduction to the second, or both happening in order (perhaps with another first woman running about, or the first being the true creation and the second a delusional mistake by a demiurge). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

They're not all versions of the same ur-myth. That's silly. We have to deal with existing texts and the existing myths they instantiate.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: The problem is that there's only the one text extant; the others, J and P, are hypothetical. Furthermore, they already have articles about them. This article as it stands now is about the existing text in Genesis, which is thought by most scholars to be a reconciliation of two texts, but it's still a narrative as a thing in itself, so it can have an article. I have no opinion about merging it to the article on the book of Genesis. Perhaps that's a good way to settle the issue here.alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

(e-c) Thank you for the quick reply, Ian. That only leaves one (I sincerely hope) last question: would the "combined" stories be regarded as a form of single iteration of the myth, by, perhaps, literalist Christians,and is it significant? I don't know that area of Christianity very well, I'm afraid. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

In response to the unsigned comment above, we are supposed to be a basically academic encyclopedia,discuussing topics from a basically academic perspective. If the independent academic community largely accepts hypotheses, we should do the same, to basically the same degree.John Carter (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree. What in my comment made you think otherwise?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that I seem to have maybe misread you. What we are probably looking at here is establishing notability and assignment of content for 4 distinct topics: the text as text, myth versions 1 & 2, and the combined text as one version. Does that sound right? John Carter (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not sure what you mean by your last item. Maybe the myth that the combined text is an instantiation of? If so I think that's right. All four are clearly notable. We already have articles on J, on P, and on the specific text in the book of Genesis. There is room to write an article called Genesis creation myth as well. It would be easy enough to establish that all four subjects are sufficiently notable and have the sourcing to support stand-alone articles. This article is currently about the text in the book of Genesis, and it's not in bad shape, so I think it would create unnecessary work to try to turn it into an article on the myth qua myth with (almost certainly) a long subsection on the text. I would rather see those who feeled moved to do so write a new article on the myth itself, almost certainly with a subsection on the text. There's so much more that could be said in this article about the text that I think it would be a shame to mix it all up with an article on the myth just to have to try to separate it later should it grow too long. Furthermore an article on the (combined) myth would have to cover later interpretations, popular understandings through history, how new oral and written versions and traditions concerning the myth have grown in various sects and denominations, and so on. There's a little of that in this article, but obviously much, much more could be written.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source round-up

Results from reliable source search engines, reputable books, etc. Feel free to add to this list. Evan  17:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Google Scholar results

• "creation narrative in Genesis" OR "creation narratives in Genesis" OR "Genesis creation narrative" OR "Genesis creation narratives" OR "creation narrative of Genesis" OR "creation narratives of Genesis" - 1,310 results

• "creation myth in Genesis" OR "creation myths in Genesis" OR "Genesis creation myth" OR "Genesis creation myths" OR "creation myth of Genesis" OR "creation myths of Genesis" - 569 results

Google Books results

• "creation narrative in Genesis" OR "creation narratives in Genesis" OR "Genesis creation narrative" OR "Genesis creation narratives" OR "creation narrative of Genesis" OR "creation narratives of Genesis" - 8,870 results

• "creation myth in Genesis" OR "creation myths in Genesis" OR "Genesis creation myth" OR "Genesis creation myths" OR "creation myth of Genesis" OR "creation myths of Genesis" - 6,200 results

Lets look at those sources as a head count is never a good way of doing this. Lets see who is publishing what? What will the world see as more reliable and neutral - Do we think our reader's would have more confidence with publishers like Oxford University, ABC-CLIO and University Press of New England or publishers like Baker Publishing Group and William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company?-- Moxy (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Myth

• Marcelo Gleiser (2012). The Dancing Universe: From Creation Myths to the Big Bang. UPNE. ISBN 978-1-61168-395-0.
• In the Beginning: Creation Myths from Around the World. ICRL Press. March 2010. ISBN 978-1-936033-02-7.
• David Adams Leeming (1994). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-510275-8.
• David Adams Leeming (2010). Creation Myths of the World: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-59884-174-9.
• Paul F. Lurquin; Linda Stone (8 June 2007). Evolution and Religious Creation Myths : How Scientists Respond: How Scientists Respond. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-971796-5.
• Jacob Neusner (2000). Judaism's Story of Creation: Scripture, Halakhah, Aggadah (Brill Reference Library of Judaism). Brill Academic Pub. ISBN 978-9004118997. (Neusner uses "creation myth" once and "creation narrative" four times)

Narrative

• Peter C. Bouteneff (2008). Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives. Baker Academic. ISBN 978-1-4412-0183-6.
• Masanobu Endo (2002). Creation and Christology: A Study on the Johannine Prologue in the Light of Early Jewish Creation Accounts. Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 978-3-16-147789-8.
• Paul King Jewett. God, Creation, and Revelation: A Neo-evangelical Theology. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8028-0460-0.
• James L. Kugel (2008). How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 9780743235877.
• Jacob Neusner (2000). Judaism's Story of Creation: Scripture, Halakhah, Aggadah (Brill Reference Library of Judaism). Brill Academic Pub. ISBN 978-9004118997. (Neusner uses "creation myth" once and "creation narrative" four times)
• Hans Schwarz (2002). Creation. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8028-6066-8.
• Amos Yong (2011). The Spirit of Creation: Modern Science and Divine Action in the Pentecostal-charismatic Imagination. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8028-6612-7.

Regarding the systemic bias claim

I wish that those who think that unless we "treat all religions equally" we are incorporating some kind of bias into Misplaced Pages would address the position, fairly well articulated here: Religion#Social_constructionism, that the very idea of "a religion" is a Western one, and that discussing all spiritual/cultural belief systems under the rubric of religion is itself biased. The basic argument is that "religion" is a category imposed on cultural belief systems by anthropologists who take the Abrahamic religions as normative, and that this leads to basic misunderstandings about what's actually happening in those other cultures. The same kind of thing often happens when people set out to be fair by treating all X the same. The dominant culture's conceptions of X end up being a model, taken as universal but really quite particular, into which all X must be forced.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

So, because some critics claim that certain anthropologists apply the Abrahamic view of religion to some other peoples' tradition belief systems, we should apply a rather specific Abrahamic bias to the articles on creation stories by calling the Abrahamic story a narrative (arguing against calling it a myth on the grounds that "people think myths are false") and yet call other such stories "myths"? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say "people think myths are false." Anyone using the argument that "people think myths are false" doesn't understand the terms of the discussion and their opinions should be disregarded. It's not some critics, anyway, it's mainstream anthropology. Treating a lived common belief system in a hunter-gatherer society as the same kind of thing as an institutionalized religion with thousands of years of conscious textual construction behind it is biased. There's no bias in calling a narrative (specific text) a narrative and a myth (roughly unitary story communicated in multiple texts-broadly-construed) a myth.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

A plea to my colleagues

With all this attention being focused on the name of the article, as interesting as it is, we have a kind of ongoing slow edit-war going on regarding specific content, discussed directly above the move proposal in Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Under_the_sun.2C_moon.2C_and_stars. This could surely benefit from more attention if anyone could spare a moment to consider weighing in there.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

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