Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Elohim-god or gods?

User:IRWolfie- wants to add an edit to the effect that the word elohim can mean "gods" as well as "god". So it can. It can also mean "judge" and even "ghost" (when Moses appoints "judges" for the Israelites he appoints "elohim", and when the Witch of Endor calls up the ghost of Samuel from the underworld she sees "elohim"). The word has a wide range of meanings. The thing is to chose the right one for the context. For that reason, we can't simply rely on a Hebrew dictionary that gives the full range (if we did, we could be justified in saying that the world was created by a ghost or that Hell was full of judges). We have to find sources that are discussing, very specifically, Genesis 1. The sources are listed in the bibliography - several of them are commentaries on Genesis, others are more specialised, but all of them agree that what Genesis has in mind is the creation of the world by a single god. PiCo (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Add an inline citation to one of the commentaries; that will satisfy me and probably future readers. Cheers. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reduced the part in brackets so that it now gives the translation of Elohim as God. This is accurate in the context of Genesis 1 - I've never come across a source that suggests a polytheistic meaning to the chapter. I don't want to start putting up sources for the translation of the word 'elohim' itself because it's far more complicated than it appears on the surface - it has far more than one or even two meanings. In short, I feel it's a sidetrack that we don't need to go down - the article is about the creation, not about the meaning of 'elohim'. PiCo (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Myth

I've removed "creation myth" from the in-article title/lede for the same reasons as described in the "rename article" section above. It may have a place in the body of the article, but not in the article's title, or its in-article title. It's like in the article "Abrahamic religions", a certain editor I do not recall was constantly editing the title to include "aka desert monotheism" or various comments to the effect of "the religion that poisons everything" (I'm assuming from the title of the book by the late C Hitchens). "Genesis creation narrative" is perfectly perspicuous, neutral, and adequate for the purpose: if needed, something like "Genesis creation narrative (or cosmogony)" is more neutral. Please do not re-add, at least without a vote and consensus. I have also changed the weasel and unspecific "Modern Biblical scholars" to the correct, neutral, and clear "According to the Documentary Hypothesis"; not all modern Biblical scholars hold such views, etc., etc.; the latter is more clear, more specific, and more neutral.JohnChrysostom (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going through your edits one by one, which only fair, and putting comments here. (I'm ignoring the "myth" question as I've never regarded it as particularly important).

• Documentary hypothesis: I've had to revert this as what you wrote isn't what the cited source, Davies, says. If we have a source quoted than we have to quote accurately. In any case, you're a bit behind the times in your understanding of modern theories on the composition of the Pentateuch. The documentary hypothesis came under intense criticism in then 70s and 80s and has rather few followers these days, although it does have some (Friedman, for example). Davies is setting out the modern (first decade of the 21st century) position, which is that all scholars accept that there are 2 clearly identifiable sources in the Pentateuch, still called the Yahwist and the Priestly, but they're no longer regarded as documents, and the dates have been drastically revised. Read Davies, the quoted page and also the entire article (it's an introductory commentary on Genesis).
• The second edit disappeared when I reverted, so no comment.
• Documentary hypothesis again - you want to call it a "common paradigm among biblical critics." It's no longer a common paradigm, rather a rare one in fact (see reference to Friedman, above).
• Days or ages: You want to add a gloss to the effect that when Genesis says days it means ages. I haven't come across a single reputable source that says this, but if you find one we can consider it.
• Divine speech. You add a reference to the text of Genesis. I don't see the need - has anyone questioned this? Just leave it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 06:26, 12 January 2012‎ (UTC)

• As far as divine speech, when I was going through edit history, I saw one man keep removing it. What is this new theory called? the Revised Fragmentary hypothesis? All of my sources must be woefully out of date (and I'm a seminarian, embarrassing). I was working under the assumption (from Sarna 1966, "Understanding Genesis") that what was being talked about was DH: therefore, "A common understanding among scholars?" asks, "A common understanding of what?" and is answered, "the DH". Can you point me in the direction of some of this new literature, even if it must be purchased? I'm very interested in it.
• In English, Gen 1 says "day", in Heb, "יום" (overlapping but distinct). Is a Torah or OT commentary (Sarna, Bruggemann, NICOT) considered a reliable source? I have WBC Wenham Genesis (vol 1), Bruggemann Interpretation of Genesis, International Critical Commentary Genesis (vol 1), Continental Commentary Genesis (vol 1), and all say that "yom" has several meanings, including "solar/24-hour day" and "aeon" - the only source that doesn't admit "aeon" is the very conservative (creationist) NAC. If not, a Hebrew lexicon must be? for Koehler-Baumgarnter's lexicon agrees (as does Augustine [as the sun wasn't created until day 4] but I've run in to an issue here where old sources are considered worse than no sources). JohnChrysostom (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• For "day" and "aeon", Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon says:

1. day, time, year

a. day (as opposed to night)

b. day (24 hour period)

1. as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1

2. as a division of time 1b

e. time, period (general)

f. year JohnChrysostom (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You probably know more than I do if you're a seminarian :)

I removed "divine speech" only because the sentence was getting too long and clumsy. We do treat the divine speech aspect in the body of the article, and of course it's very important, but I don't want to lose the reader with over-long, over-complicated sentences. (Divine speech is indeed important - maybe we could have a new para in the lead in which that and some other questions get some attention).

"Yom" certainly has a range of meanings, but they don't matter from our point of view - what counts is that there are six of them.

On current views on the formation of the Pentateuch, there's no single theory these days, everyone who writes a book seems to come up with a new one. For an overview, you could read Ska (2006, pretty recent) and Van Seters (1998 - not at all recent, really). McDermott seems to be writing with entry-level readers in mind - he talks at length about the 4-source hypothesis, and only gets to more modern developments around page 19.

A very good and very recent work is Megan Bishop Moore and Brad Kelle, Biblical History and Israel's Past (2011) - not in our bibliography here. It focuses more Israel's history than the biblical texts, but it has a good running overview of developments from Wellhausen to the modern period. PiCo (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• I never thought that 2006, or even 1998, would be considered "not recent" in any field other than IT, where the "recentness" changes from quarter to quarter! As far as seminary, I highly doubt I know as much as you do on this subject: my knowledge has already been surpassed or demonstrated to be factually incorrect/out-of-date on several points: I can't stand being factually incorrect: thus I continue to read, to learn.JohnChrysostom (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

2006 is certainly recent. A book you MUST read if you're into this subject is the collection of essays called A Farewell to the Yahwist (Dozeman and Schmidt, 2006). It caused quite a stir, Van Seters wrote a response telling them they were well out of line. His problem was that his career has been built around the theory that the Yahwist is Exilic, not United Monarchy, but nevertheless exists. "Farewell" was more or less saying that the Priestly exists, but otherwise there's just "the rest" (Yahwist).

Have a look at the bibliographies for our articles on the Deuteronomist, the Yahwist and the Priestly source. PiCo (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• I checked the textbook I am using for source criticism of the Pentateuch, and lo and behold! Immediately, it came to pass and I saw, behold! That it is The Bible: With Sources Revealed begat by none other than Richard Elliott Friedman. JohnChrysostom (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with Friedman, he's a very eminent scholar and totally reliable. That book has a very good discussion of the DH understanding of the sources of the Pentateuch, although elsewhere (in "Who Wrote the Bible") Friedman argues for an order of the sources JEPD instead of the more usual JEDP. But Friedman is very didactic and doesn't allow for any other explanation except the DH - he totally ignores everything that's happened since about 1970.

If you want to go to the important scholarly sources, you could begin with Whybray's book, the name of which escapes me at the moment, and the books by Van Seters, Thomas L. Thompson and H.H. Schmid, all of which came out in the 70s. Those books really started people looking sceptically at the DH. You also need to know the views of Rentdorf, who is equally important as Van Seters but took a very different view.

What are they covering in your seminary? PiCo (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Biblical Studies—Historical Criticism. Source and Redaction Criticism. (Elective, of course: not part of the "main course" of theology and canon law.) JohnChrysostom (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Why does this article use euphemisms when Wikipedia advises against such pansy nonsense?

This article uses both "narrative" instead of myth, and "BCE" instead of BC, to appease the spineless PC dolts of the society. This must be rectified by those housing brains in their skulls, ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.127.199 (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Rather than being so rude (which you know won't help), could you explain your concerns and make specific suggestions for changes please. HiLo48 (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct, perhaps I should not have been so blunt but it was rather striking as soon as I visited the article. Now that I check on the history, I see a huge discussion relating to both "narrative" and "BCE". While "narrative" has consensus, "BCE" does not as it was decided that the original use of BC should remain. Viewing the article's history, User:PiCo arbitrarily changed it to BCE, therefore it should be changed back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.127.199 (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed on BCE. It's useless at best: I don't know why people use it, because it's still based on Dionysius Exiguus' calculation of the year of Jesus Christ's birth - (it's no less Christian than renaming "After Hijra" (AH) to "After Ascent of Heraclius" (AAH) would cause AH to cease being Muslim) and it's been backronymed to "Before/Christian Era" in any religious context. If something "neutral" is desired (as if years could be controversial!), one would be forced to use Ab urbe condita or something similar (but that would be accused of Occidentalist bias). Shouldn't we be using Anno mundi in an article about Genesis? ;-) JohnChrysostom (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:ERA: "No preference is given to either style." The general consensus is that the one that is first established is the one that should be used. Are we really wanting to open this debate again?

As for narrative, see WP:NEUTRAL. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw my above agreement. I had no idea there was a WP for preferred dating systems - I thought I'd read, top to bottom, every WP there was, and about a hundred essays and demoted/failed consensus policies too. I would have thought Wikipedia would have gone for consistency, but, in hindsight, I see that not even the English style is consistent (some American, some British, some Oxford Spelling), but I do recall the policy that states that the dialect of English to be used is that which the article is already written in, and thou shalt not delete "u" after "o" before "r", nor add it, nor change "z" to "s" after "i" before "e", so why should dates, except within a single article? I bow to the wisdom of the community, comrade. ;-) JohnChrysostom (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is inundated with IP editors who see it as their holy mission to change BC notation to BCE notation. The more sophisticated ones use WP:ERA as their excuse. However, there is a huge difference between an editor who incidentally (and typically unconsciously) changes era notation as part of a series of edits that are actually intended to improve, add to, or enhance content, and an editor who simply changes notations for ideological purposes. The former are not disruptive, the latter are, and I have no patience for these era-warrior wikilawyers - I generally just revert, and block on repeated offenses. I hope that's clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What happened was that PICO changed it from BC to BCE. It should be returned to BC as by the 250th edit, the article was well established and so was BC. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps he did, but it appears that it was incidental to a series of significant improvements PiCo was making to the article content. I don't accept people editing articles solely for the purpose of changing eras, and unless someone comes up with an actual reason for this IP's changes (and not of the "but he did it first" wikilawyering kind), I won't accept it here either. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what "you accept", you're not the boss of Wikipedia, sir. Read WP:ERA and you'll see that PiCo was not justified changing the era regardless of how many other simultenous edits he made. If you take that outlook then you need to say that if I go to an article that uses BCE and change the use to BC but make sure to revamp the article too, that's fine. No, you have to follow the guideline at WP:ERA which says do not change without proper reason, when it goes against concensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.127.199 (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please review my previous comments, particularly the one of 16:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC). Jayjg ^(talk) 00:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please review my previous comments, particularly the one of 4:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC). In short, I have been around this sort of edit discussion before and understand that just because any one editor has a preference is no reason to change an established article. That is what happened here and so stop pushing an inappropriate change. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I assure you I have no preference at all and any change was purely incidental. I just don't care whether it's BC or BCE. Please don't personalise this using my name. PiCo (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please review PiCo's comments above. As I said, the changes he made were incidental to a series of significant improvements PiCo was making to the article content; on the other hand, the IPs changes were exactly what WP:ERA forbids. To repeat, I don't accept people editing articles solely for the purpose of changing eras, and unless someone comes up with an actual reason for this IP's changes (and not of the "but he did it first" "but he broke a rule" wikilawyering kind), I won't accept it here either. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

How can you tell the difference between an era change that is merely incidental and one that is intentional and biased? What if a user (not specifying PiCo, but someone doing something similar) had a personal desire to change BC to BCE everywhere on Wikipedia, but knows that the only way he can get away with it is by making significant changes to the article simulteneously? What I did is not forbidden by WP:ERA at all, I was reverting to the era usage of earlier concensus, see the archive discussion on this talk page. Are you saying that if someone else made helpful and expanding edits to History of Judaism but used BC, it would stand? Or that someone reverting him would be just a trolling "wikylawyer"? Of course you wouldn't say that, because you are in support of BCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.127.199 (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's how you can tell the difference. Here is an incidental era change, in which mediocre material using BC/AD notation is removed, and entirely new, completely different, and superior material is added, incidentally using BCE/CE notation. By contrast, here's an arbitrary era change, done by a WP:SPA IP, solely for ideological purposes, in violation of WP:ERA. If you imagine I am in any way concerned that you might spend a significant amount of time actually improving articles – as opposed to simply carrying out your holy war against BCE/CE notation and "the spineless PC dolts of the society" – then you must think me even stupider than your previous comments have implied. Now stop wasting our time with your wikilawyering, and review my previous comments, particularly the one of 16:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC). Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Name-calling aside, this article was created using BC and should remain as such. Any other changes are inconsequential. Any comment to the contrary misses the point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikilawyering aside, the change happened incidentally, as part of an complete rewrite. Any other concerns are inconsequential. Any comment to the contrary misses the point. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Those concerns are the only valid ones. A rewrite to content is fine, particularly when incorrect information is removed or better information is provided. A rewrite to established date formats is never permitted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. PiCo did the "rewrite to content", which we all agree is fine, and the IP editor (and you in support of him) did the "rewrite to established date formats", which will all now agree is not fine. By the way, Walter, can you show me an edit in which PiCo took an existing sentence, and changed the era notation in it from BC/AD to BCE/CE? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We're still arguing about this? Hopefully everyone here understands that WP:ERA was established to prevent these sort of discussions, because everyone agreed (regardless of their preference) that notation was inconsequential if it conveyed the same meaning, and they'd rather spend time actually improving the encyclopedia. If we all agree the current version is fine, then why are we still fighting? Let's move on, please. If someone has an issue with an editor's conduct, WP:WQA, WP:RFCU and your choice of the various noticeboards are available. This is not the place.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

it concerns not creation of matter from nothing but the ordering of functions and destinies.

This is a view not shared by the majority of commentators and authorities I have read, and is usually at most offered as a possible alternate interpretation, with most holding that bara does mean to create ex nihilo. The assertion should not be made in such a bare and assured way, but mentioned in tandem with the reading of genuine creation. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 12:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi John. I think your background might be rather conservative,hence you'll be reading conservative sources, for whom it's a sine qua non that God creates everything, and creates it out of nothing.

Can you give us your commentators and authorities? (A link to a couple of google-books would be useful).

• On the side that says Gen.1 is not about creatio ex nihilo, see Walton's entry on Creation in the Dictionary of the Old Testament. (This link opens at the cover - you need page 162). Unfortunately the type is very hard on the eyes, but we also have a number of other works by Walton in the bibliography and you can try those instead or in addition.
• For the really hard-to-read stuff, you could try Gerhard May's book on Creatio Ex Nihilo - the book is quite famous and you'll find it mentioned by conservative scholars, who argue against it. I have to admit that May is heavy going.
• This essay by Ernan McMullin gives a very useful account of the history of the idea of creatio ex nihilo. You need to find page 11. He says, incidentally, that "exegetical opinion today" (meaning a majority of scholars?) favours a non-nihilo understanding of Genesis 1 (see page 14, but read the entire essay). e makes the interesting point that the biblical writers actually don't seem to have much cared whether God created from existing materials or not, and that this question only became important in the early Church.
• Blenkinsopp has some interesting things to say - see page 30 and onwards.

I'll be busy for a few days and may not be able to give much time to this for a while, but I look forward to a debate. It's an interesting question. PiCo (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I take NPOV seriously, but even I may fall prey to the "megalomaniacal point of view" mentioned in one of the essays here (where one thinks one's own opinion truly is neutral) from time to time. I do imagine my background must be conservative, coming from an Islamic culture (although I've always seen myself as very liberal, as most others saw me - relativism at work! - although in my new milieu that liberalism is probably quite conservative [speaking of religion and morality, not of economics, on which I am an unabashed leftist]). In any case, the fact that I do have abundant reliable, widely-available published sources that argue for ex nihilo is grounds alone for inclusion in Wikipedia, WEIGHT and NPOV. For modern (i.e. post-Augustinian) work, as far as commentary alone (I'm too tired to go through the non-commentary works now, because the commentary is easy to browse - chances are it's right in the front of a commentary on Genesis!) I have the conservative Rashi, Keil & Delitzsche, Mathew's NAC, Wenham's WBC, NICOT, Bruce's NIBC, the moderate Eerdman's, Farmer's IBC, NIB and Berit Olam, and the moderate-to-modernist Sarna's Understanding, Bruggemann's Interpretation, Brown & Fitzmyer's NJBC, Continental Commentary, and the ICC. All of the conservative works fall towards ex nihilo, Eerdman's tilts towards the middle, Farmer's is clearly ex nihilo, NIB offers both interpretations as equal, NJBC leans strongly towards rearranging, Berit Olam leans towards ex nihilo, Bruggemann withholds judgment (in light of later scripture, as well), and ICC and Continental are rearranging. The issue isn't that some don't say that it is not ex nihilo, but that some respected and skillful exegetes do ("verifiability, not truth"); if it's divided along liberal/conservative lines, which, for the most part, it is, neither can be excluded to the cost of the other, as, there are skillful exegetes on both sides of the issue; there is not consensus, etc. I don't know if they're available online, and I should be back around 05:50 UTC tomorrow. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 14:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Reading Bruggemann, (I'll type it up in a bit), I think we may want to adopt similar phrasing and emphasis in the article. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 15:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I got the eBook to work (it's awesome - Timaeus referenced in the first dozen pages!). I love those works that tie Christianity to the ancient schools of philosophy, Platonic, Neo-Platonic (Augustine, anyone?), and Aristotelian (later in time, Scholastics), and the cosmogonies and worldviews of each. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 17:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Authorlinks

1. How do we add authorlinks to books that have more than one author, or "editorlinks"? Specifically with the citation of Metzger and Coogan in mind. I tried the "|Authorlink =" parameter, with no success, along with "|Authorlink-1", "|Editor-1-link", and a dozen others.

2. Also, the citation style of this article is completely foreign to me (what style is it, anyways?) - the only time I'm seen anything like it used is parenthetical citation, where what are now listed as the footnotes would go in the body of the text, replacing the superscript numbered footnote-links, and the bibliography would be where references are now (that is, Harvard/MLA style). I've never seen this hybrid parenthetical-citations-used-as-footnotes style (and it's extremely confusing on how to use, especially if I need to include a quote from a book that isn't available online, as most of the current citations link to an eBook). Could someone point me to a resource or tell me how to format references I add to this article in line with the current style? St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 16:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The harv template is a parenthetical citation that can appear in the text, but that clutters up the text the readers see, so they have been moved to the footnotes section. For the editor the harv template reduces the clutter in the middle of the edited text. The harv footnote links to the appropriate citation in the references section. To include a quote with a particular harv template insert it after the template and before the /ref. SmittysmithIII (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Creation myth

User:Keahapana recently added "creation myth" directly after the title of the article in this edit. His edit summary indicates there is "longstanding consensus" for this addition somewhere in the archives. (EDIT: This was apparently the last good revision, and supported by past discussion.) I was surprised to see we don't include the term elsewhere in the lead, however, I'm not sure this phrasing is the right way to go about it. "Genesis creation narrative" and "creation myth" are not synonymous, as the current phrasing would imply. I'm going to revert and (if possible) add it somewhere else... but given that Keahapana stated there was consensus elsewhere, please point me to that consensus if I'm acting in opposition to a previous discussion. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've settled on this, which might work a bit better. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus was established (anew; if different, "Consensus can change": see above non-archived discussion) for "creation narrative", with myth placed in the body of text. Reverted accordingly. Thank you for looking for a diplomatic solution, in any case :-) St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 21:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit: reading, consensus wasn't that strong: PiCo and myself, the two main recent contributors to the article (PiCo being the main author, full stop). Maybe new consensus needs be to sought, but, with how contentious naming of this article is, WP:BOLD edits are likely to disrupt the equilibrium that it appears to have taken years to reach a semblance of. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 21:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors and readers may associate the word "myth" with "fiction" and it would take a great deal of space to explain the technical terminology, which would, in the end, detract from the purpose of the article. I would suggest not changing the article's name itself, but mentioning the term in the body somewhere. Ideally not in the lede to avoid changing the consensus. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. Ninety-nine percent of readers are going to take the use of "myth" in a POV-manner (as a definitive statement, "this is fiction"), not as a technical scholarly term, and education in the terminology of comparative mythology is beyond the scope of this article (or at least the lede). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 21:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)John, thank you for pointing me to the discussion above. I missed taking part in that. I don't agree the term "creation myth" should be excluded from the lead. Previous discussions on the article title concluded that it should be strongly included within the article's text, and only not as the title itself due to WP:UCN. Genesis is a creation myth, above all else, and that label is not appropriate to exclude for the reasons listed thus far. We also have strong sourcing for the term, which brings to mind weight concerns. The consensus on this and other articles in the past has been to include and link to creation myth prominently. See discussion here, and on Adam, for starters. If we are going to change that consensus, I think we need a new discussion with large participation.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the claim that readers will misunderstand the term "myth" has been argued and rejected by past consensus. It is a useful label with a scholarly definition, and wikipedia is a scholarly encyclopedia. We have strong sourcing and the creation myth article is quite clear on its meaning. Overturning prior consensus for that reason without first rehashing the discussion and giving it some time seems preemptive, at least.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

How do I re-open discussion, beyond what I have done here? I am not in principle opposed to "the Genesis Creation Narrative, which contains the creation myth of the Jewish and Christian religions" or something similar, with a prominent explanation that, in context, the term "myth" passes no judgment on the truth-value of the creation narrative, but I don't see how it can be made workable (as explaining "myth" can be put in a note, but the people who are going to read the note are likely the people who already know what the word "myth" means in context, not John Q Public). It seems that we need to consider NPOV from the perspective of readers, as well as editors and experts. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 22:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll go a step farther and say that it's a baseless assertion. As far as I know there have been no studies documenting public perception of "myth" so all we really have to go on is our personal experience, which is pretty much worthless as evidence. Since we're an encyclopedia theoretically based on academic sources, we should use terms that academics use insofar is it is not beyond technical understanding. "Myth" should be wikilinked so that those who don't know can check it out, but we can't assume one way or another if people understand it off the bat or not and since it's a scholarly term we should use it. That's pretty much the gist of where past conversations on the topic have ended. N^oformation ^Talk 22:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@John Well, IIRC, the last discussion (like others) was an RfC. To overturn consensus from an RfC, it would seem prudent to either hold a new RfC asking for clarification/new consensus, or to post a new section devoted to this issue alone, and give it a good amount of time to bring in additional comments. Instead, it appears that you opened discussion above about this and numerous other issues... Pico, alone, commented on the other issues... and so the label was removed since there was no stated opposition. I don't mean to imply there was any bad faith here, but making a change to the article after such a brief and poorly represented discussion probably wasn't a helpful way to proceed. I'm happy to participate in another discussion about it - perhaps if you'd start another RfC with your proposed removal it would garner some interest. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Discussion seems to be tapering off, so I'm going to revert back to the last consensus version. Please note this is not my preferred version - I think it poses a few problems, and I undid it when it was reintroduced. However, it has been in the article for a while, and was introduced to appeal to consensus for many past discussions on this issue. I'll open a new discussion asking for a wording change shortly. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

New wording proposal

I recently changed the parenthetical "creation myth" to integrate it within the sentence here. This was reverted by User:JohnChrysostom on the basis of objecting to "creation myth" appearing in the lead at all. I haven't seen any other objections to the proposed wording, but rather then reinstitute them after the revert, I'd welcome any further discussion on my proposal. My reasons for the change are enumerated above. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's a very good solution, and am puzzled where JohnChrysostom got the impression that there was any consensus about mentioning "creaton myth" in the lead. It should be reinstated. It is essential to the basic definition of the subject. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What?... This is getting ridiculous! There is an article called creation myth. To put that in the lead in bold means that that is what this article is about -- which it is not. I don't think that term should be in the lead at all, but certainly not in bold! --Musdan77 (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Its current state is confusing. The lack of link to the creation myth article makes it misleading. And I agree that making it bold is not necessary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I support "The Genesis creation narrative (or creation myth)... " which was PiCo's idea, if I remember correctly. Jesanj (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Slight modification:

The Genesis creation narrative (or Genesis creation myth)

The full term should be used, not simply a fragment of it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Guys... you're commenting on a change proposal and responding instead to the current wording. I don't like the current wording; that's why I'm making a proposal to change it. Please see my diff above. The change I am proposing is "The Genesis creation narrative is a creation myth contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, describing..." The parenthetical is a bad idea for a couple reasons I've outlined above... which is why I suggested changing it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your change Jess, the current revision with the bolded standalone "creation myth" doesn't work, it seems to imply that it is called either the Genesis creation narrative or the creation myth. I agree with the "is a creation myth" phrasing — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 05:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, if we're not supposed to be discussing change, why are we discussing change? Creation myth should not be bold. And to clarify, it is called both the Genesis creation narrative and the Genesis creation myth depending on whether it's a biblical studies author (the forming wording) or a religious studies author (the latter wording). It is not a creation myth to all parties which is why it should contain the "or". Another appropriate phrase would be "also known as". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Onces upon the umpteenth timeses this same objection has been raised in this article, I've commented that I think the parenthetical (creation myth) would be better handled if interwoven (and wikilinked) narratively rather than parenthetically but that this fact really must be addressed in the article lead, although not necessarily the first sentence. The issue will never satisfy every new editor and reader, but because I haven't changed my opinion, I will repeat my opinion every time the issue is re-raised until I hear a better argument against it. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Walter... my proposal does not have creation myth in bold. I made a proposal to change it from being bold and in parens, and received a response saying "This is ridiculous! [It shouldn't be in bold and parens]." You agreed with that sentiment and suggested we just remove the bolding. Musdan77 clearly did not read the proposal he was responding to, so your agreement with him tells me very little. Did you read my proposal? What are your thoughts on it? "It should not be in bold" is not a valid reason to disagree.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I was simply responding to Mann_jess' suggestion. I also agree no bold for second term, no parenthesis, and link to creation myth. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. So you agree with my proposal. Awesome. Thanks for the clarification!   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I support Jess's suggested wording "The Genesis creation narrative is a creation myth contained ... ". A succinct and elegant beginning ... what more could a reader want? Abtract (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I support my own suggested wording (which was re-iterated by Mann Jess, because of course, every idea that is good was mine first), "The Genesis creation narrative is a creation myth contained in the first two [or three, if one counts the Fall] chapters of the Book of Genesis[, the first book] of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament).". As is, the article reads like 1) a confusion between this article and that on creation myth, and as the worst kind of design-by-committee (e.g. creationists name the article "Beginning of the Universe", moderates name the article "Genesis creation myth", creationists name it something else, causing the more anti-religious secularists to take a harder stance, naming it something like "Genesis creation myth [ridiculous Iron-age fable]", causing the creationists to take a harder stance, ending up with "Genesis creation narrative", a compromise name [as Biblical (and Judaeo-Christian tradition) scholars generally use the term narrative, whereas mythologists and scholars of comparative religion use myth], followed by "[or creation myth]", an even lesser compromise [which reeks of one side of the debate having become too tired to object], which, in context, reads as a slap in the face to the entire process and has negative connotations). Surprisingly, this negative context disappears completely when it is directly called a creation myth, which seems like it would be worse! I'm rambling, but I think my point is made: the new in-article title reads decently, the old one reads like it was designed by a committee of rabid opponents. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 12:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I support the above suggested wording, which is now the current wording - "The Genesis creation narrative is a creation myth contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis ...". I'm not too fussed as to who suggested it first, but I like the simplicity. Colonel Tom 12:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

My suggesting it first was a joke (intended by the "of course, every good idea is mine" phrasing). To make sure everyone's clear and I don't seem like a WP:DICK, Mann Jess was the first editor to introduce that wording. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 12:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for creating this unnecessary diversion from the topic, and for making you think you needed to clarify your joke, St.John. Colonel Tom 12:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Mr Colonel, I'm not a saint - that's why John Chrysostom is bolded (sorry, I couldn't help myself there ;-). However I do know that "internet humour" (defined as humour transmitted across the internet, not inanity like 4Chan) is often not visible to anyone other than he who writes it (and, when not obvious, can often make a man look less-than-civil), as a corollary to Poe's law. I suppose that's why the Usenet geeks came up with so many novel combinations of various punctuation marks in an attempt to express it. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 13:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I also support the wording, which is now the current wording... "The Genesis creation narrative is a creation myth... Theroadislong (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I support JohnChrysostom's use of irony in explaining his stance. I don't support adding extra space between comments if an editor didn't add them directly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I support what Theroadislong said. Jesanj (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Some edits to the lead

I've carried out a number of edits to the last to sentences of the first para of the lead, the end result being that two sentences have been reduced to one. The motivation was to reduce the number of words - the article is already quite long and seems to be getting longer, and I wanted to keep the sense with fewwer words.

The edit took the end of the first para from this:

Robert Alter, of U.C. Berkeley, described the combined narrative as "compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends."[1] The narrative is deemed to be both a product of the cultural world of the Ancient Near East and yet different, borrowing some Mesopotamian themes but adapting them to the Israelites' overriding monotheism, as expressed in the shema.[2]

to this:

The combined narrative is "compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends,"[1] borrowing some Mesopotamian themes but adapting them to the Israelites' unique conception of their one God.[2]

The sources have stayed the same, and I don't think anything essential is lost. PiCo (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

After re-adding Wikilinks to monotheism and shema with the text of your revision, I agree. So much for WP:BOLD on this page, eh? :-) St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 12:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Some Objections to the Lead

The lead is infuriatingly very POV again.

• "which is generally vocalized as Yahweh (archaically as "Jehovah")" is incorrect. What is "archaically" in this case? Yesterday? Plenty of denominations stll use it today. The middle ages? Or did the author believe that ancient Hebrews actually pronounced the tetragrammaton as "Jehovah"?

• "The combined narrative is "compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends,"[1] borrowing some Mesopotamian themes but adapting them to the Israelites' unique conception of their one God." Unique? In what way? Monotheism is a common theme in various religions including Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Baha'i, and Atenism. Just because Shema is unique to Hebrews doesn't mean their conception of their God is unique nor that monotheism is unique to them. I have tried to remove it only to have it reappear without explanation. Smacks of exceptionalism to me. Not to mention the use of "Israelites" in this case.

• Lastly, the lead has ceased being a summary and an introduction as it should be (WP:MOSINTRO). Starting from the second paragraph, it is now full of direct quotes and individual interpretations that are not repeated nor discussed more fully in text. Neither do they adequately address the different opinions among different Abrahamic religions.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

As I've been told, Wikipedia is scholarly: modern scholars use "Yahweh", not "Jehovah", even if modern sects still do. This isn't about the view of different religious sects on the Tetragrammaton, we have articles on that too. It's about scholarly analysis of the Genesis creation narrative. "Jehovah" was abandoned by scholars in the first part of the 20th century: a deprecated use, in this case, is correctly marked as "archaic". This is not about denominations (as evidenced by the article title). It's about the Genesis creation myth. The Israelites/Hebrews did/do have a unique conception of the one God; my revision was, "the Israelites' overriding monotheism", but I support the current revision by PiCo. Especially during the composition of Genesis, the Israelitic conception of God was unique, and to this day remains so (the closest that one comes to a Shema-conception of God is in Islam, where the differences are still too innumerable to be enumerated; Ahura Mazda is far from comparable), which was from 1500 years later and essentially lifted wholesale from Jewish and Christian folklore. This article isn't about comparative religions, or comparative mythology: Wikipedia has articles on those. It is about the Genesis creation narrative, studied as a creation myth (or something else) by scholars in several fields. I believe both groups have their views somewhat represented in the article (as it should be, due to WP:WEIGHT), with a strong preponderance towards the secular and/or scholarly analysis and exegesis (as is proper due to WP:NPOV) by respected scholars in the relevant fields (see the Bibliography), not dogmatic assurances, assumptions, or religious POV, which would lead the article to endless inter-religious edit wars: the respective views can be found in the articles on the respective religions. This article is no place for "comparative Abrahamic religions" any more than it is for comparative religions in general. We have an article on that, too. The lead has been a long time in the making. Before edits are made, you may want to discuss them here to find WP:CONSENSUS. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 13:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about the lower limit of your usage of "archaic". Yahweh is preferred today as it is closer what was probably the original pronunciation. Jehovah on the other hand was derived from the Latinization of the letters. The former is thus actually more archaic than the latter.

Every deity is unique to its followers. Religions are naturally exceptionalist that way. But the current wording suggests that monotheism itself is unique to Hebrews. It's an easter egg link. Mention Shema as the subject of the modifier "unique", as that seems to be what you really mean. And what do you mean "which was from 1500 years later"? Islam or Zoroastrianism? The former is merely ~600 years younger than Christianity, while the latter is ~600 years older than Christianity.

And lastly you still are not addressing WP:MOSINTRO (read it). The text from the second paragraph onwards being very detailed treatments belong to the body of the article, not on the lead. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Two articles?

Given the highly polarized views on this topic, as evidenced by the very long discussion archive, I'd like to suggest that perhaps there could be two paired articles: Genesis Creation Narrative and Genesis Creation Myth (with an appropriate explanation of why there are two articles on a disambiuation page and many cross links between the two). There exists basically two mutually exclusive approaches to Genesis by Biblical Scholars and Bible Students, i.e., 1. the text is narrative history and 2. The text is mythological allegory. Trying to reach NPOV on mutually exclusive topics is extremely difficult, as evidenced by the current text, either one POV is promoted above the other or one POV is interpreted by the other. And the result is that someone is always unhappy and tries to make changes no matter the "consensus". And there are heated discussions over what is reliable sources.

One article could be supported by reliable conservative Christian scholarly resources and the other by reliable contemporary and more liberal Christian scholarly resources. Both views deserve to be in WP because they are held by vast numbers of people around the globe. Perhaps this could be done in a single article, but the one that exists now is already way too long. The two articles could each be more comprehensive and NPOV achieved by many links between the two. SmittysmithIII (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good idea and it can possibly work. Or maybe the article can be split in half, with the first half concentrating on the conservative view and the second half concentrating on the liberal view. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't.

The first "conservative" view you are describing is Creationism. The literal interpretation of Genesis as a historical account of actual events. And no, its proponents can never be considered "reliable" sources given that they are infringing on fields with far more reliable sources. By challenging mainstream fields with empirical evidence they cease being religious views (which can be described by historical, linguistic, and philosophical scholarly sources alone) and become pseudoscience (which can't be described without necessitating that they be compared against the hard sciences of biology, geology, physics, astronomy etc. with precedence given to the latter)

WP:NPOV does not mean giving equal weight to opposing views. It means giving due weight. A "scholarly" source using the Bible as proof of geological age has far less reliability than peer-reviewed scholarly sources with conclusions derived from the scientific method. Please see WP:FRINGE.

And Zenkai, haven't you been topic-banned on this already? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

SmittysmithIII, can you give a link to some of these "conservative" sources that you think are being neglected? I have to say, though, that I think the article as it is does a pretty good job of balancing the two major elements that should be in it - the sources of Genesis 1-2, the theology it expresses.PiCo (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Obsidian, there are plenty of conservative Christian scholars, and the conservative view is not necessarily Creationism. And no, I have not been topic banned. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

@Smitty and Zenkai, see WP:CFORK. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh well, so much for that idea. Now we should focus on making the article neutral and unbiased. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the WP:CFORK page. I believe that in principle the NPOV policy is excellent, but my experience has been there are some topics where the positions are mutually exclusive and highly emotive. And it is impossible for there to be a consensus unless all of the editors happen to support the same POV which then defeats NPOV. And often, instead of a NPOV you get interpretation of one POV by and within the other POV which also defeats NPOV. Also it would be great to have an arbitary, independent means by which to determine which POVs are major, minor or fringe--perhaps some national or international polling sources. Mthoodhood (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

POV Forks are not allowed. There are many dimensions to this topic but forking any of them into separate articles like "genesis creation (conservative pov)" is out of the question. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong objection according to what's mentioned above. I can't quote a policy beyond common sense in my defense, but it seems incredibly wrong and unjustified to split the information in Wikipedia in to two pages, each having valuable information, making it divisive and hard to navigate. As has been in the past, I believe this article's talk page has done, and will continue to serve, in the admirable capacity of allowing any and all disagreements to be civilly resolved. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 23:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Atrocious lead

Come on guys, this lead is terrible. Does it really need to have "this is fiction", "the Jews copied all their beliefs from other religions", "Anyone who believes this is an imbecile" all in the lead? Of course I exaggerated slightly, but that's about what I got from reading it. If the article does need that info, at least move it somewhere in the body of the article. Also, do we really need someone's quote right in the lead? The lead should just have a brief overview of what the narrative is about. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD for the manual of style related to the lede and ideas on how it should be formulated. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight". Exactly. But this lead fails to do that by a long shot. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that the middle two paras of the lead aren't as sharp as they could be, but I can't see it saying or suggesting that anyone who believes in this is an imbecile. Alter, Sarna, Wenham - all of them are believers (e.g. Wenham is an evangelical Christian, Sarna is a Jew), and all of them are at the very top of their profession. PiCo (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, when it says your beliefs are copied from the Mesopotamians and they are all fiction, it kind of leaves the impression that you're an imbecile for believing it. This could be very damaging to a Christian, Jew, or Muslim who does not know his/her faith very well. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

All our sources say that it was copied, though. I think you should read the sources (you might have to grit your teeth) and then see if you can find counter-arguments in different ::reliable sources. That way you can at least have an informed debate with yourself :) And to take Breugemann as an example - he's an ordained minister of the United Church of Christ, but he seems able to accept these ideas without damage. PiCo (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The word "fiction" appears nowhere in the article, nor does the lead say anything about Genesis being copied. This kind of hyperbole is unhelpful. If you have an issue with a specific phrase, please quote the actual phrase, suggest an alternative, and provide sources for your proposal.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Jess - that's right, Sarna, quoted in the lead, says some Mesopotamian themes were borrowed and adapted - he doesn't say the whole thing was copied, and he puts more stress on the differences than on the similarities. But I think what bothers Zenkai is the idea that Genesis 1-2 might have human rather than divine origins. PiCo (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

PiCo- That's why we're in need of different sources. I hope someone will help me find some reliable sources that contain the other side.

Jess- I was just explaining what impression the article gives. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

About the most conservative but still reliable source I can think of off the top of my head is Waltke. I have no idea what he might have to say on this subject, but you can look him up. PiCo (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. After a quick Google search, this popped up http://reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/bc/bc.98.02.htm and http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Waltke-Cosmogony-BSac.pdf. The second is probably better. I'm reading through them now. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The second is definitely better. But use google books - one by Waltke. To find more, use the search bar at the top of the page - I typed in Waltke Creation Genesis, and that brings up a whole page of possible books, some by Waltke, some citing him. PiCo (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. Any ideas on how to put it in the lead? Zenkai251 (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to put in? Give us a draft sentence, plus a reference to your source (here, on Talk). PiCo (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, how about this:

"The Genesis creation narrative is contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament), which describes the divine creation of the world, including the first man and woman. Chapter one describes the creation of the world by Elohim (Hebrew for "God") in six days, by means of divine speech, culminating in the creation of mankind, then resting on, blessing and sanctifying the seventh day. Chapter two speaks of YHWH—the personal name of the God of Israel—which is generally vocalized as Yahweh (archaically as "Jehovah") and traditionally rendered in English Bibles as "the Lord"—and how he formed the first man from dust, placed him in the Garden of Eden, and made the first woman from his side. The combined narrative borrows some Mesopotamian literary themes but adapting them to the Israelites' belief in one God (monotheism) as expressed by the shema."

Removed "creation myth" because it is redundant and Waltke says Genesis is different from a myth. Removed the quote because a quote is not needed in the lead. Also added "literary" because Waltke says they borrowed only literary themes and not theological themes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenkai251 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires its inclusion but WP:Balance says that one opinion should not out-weigh a multitude of others. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

From a purely practical point of view I don't think you can remove the word "myth" from the lead - there are too many wiki-editors who want it in, and they have too many good sources supporting them. Can you point me to the page where Waltke says Genesis 1 is not a mythical account of creation? I'd like to know just what he means - it's very well established that Genesis is a de-mythologised account, meaning that many elements of ordinary ANE myth have been removed (no account of the origin of God himself, no story of a struggle with Chaos personified as various divine beings). There's also a rather odd theory that in order to be a myth a story needs two gods - that's never been very convincing in my eyes. But there's a very large body of opinion that holds that any story involving gods is to be defined as myth - i.e., that 's the definition of "myth", a story about gods. Anyway, I'd like to read what Waltke says. PiCo (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Zenkai251 - I think you know that your proposed wording is going to be unacceptable to non-Jews and non-Christians. It effectively says that the Genesis story is true. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

PiCo- From the first link "He quickly dismisses the notions that Genesis 1 is either a hymn or a liturgy or a myth." I also think that the word "myth" serves no purpose in the lead. What's more important: the egos of several editors or the faith of some Christians?(as I said, the word "myth" can permanently damage some Christians & Jews who's faith isn't very strong).

I don't like that source at all - it's a personal website by someone called James Jordon whom I've never heard of. Why notgo directly to whatever book by Waltke Jordan is discussing? It's Waltke's "The Literary Genre of Genesis, Chapter One" - which, oddly enough, I can't find on google books, though it gets cited often enough by other authors. So go to this page and look at some of the books that are referencing Waltke's book - you'll probably end up with much the same thing as Jordan, but from a better source. (Do you really think that the word "myth" can have such an effect? I'd be surprised if it could.)PiCo (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(Here's someone saying that Waltke does think we can call Genesis 1 "myth")

Thank you, PiCo. I will look into it. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48- My proposed wording is fine. It does NOT say Genesis is true, nor does it say it is false. My wording is perfectly neutral and you know it. Zenkai251 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

When multiple sources characterize it as a myth and one says it's not we don't give WP:UNDUE weight to that single source because it fits a an editor's literal Xtian POV. You conveniently managed to overlook the other part of Pico's sentence (which I've noticed you tend to do a lot when an opposing party says something that you'd rather not acknowledge) "[...] and they have too many good sources supporting them." Until the scholarly community makes a statement akin to "actually we were wrong, it's not a myth" then one source will not weigh out the many others. But of course you already know this. At this point you're just attempting to sneak an edit in by other means since you failed on your first attempt. You also already know that this is WP:TE. Furthermore, that the Bible borrowed heavily from other previously established mythologies is not contentious in the scholarly community - the only people who deny this are people uneducated in comparative religion. As such, a single source using "literary" is not going to counter the many, many sources that phrase it unapologetically. N^oformation ^Talk 02:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is the uncertainty in "...describes the divine creation of the world"? No, sorry, that's not neutral in the slightest. HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)You are proposing we remove the word 'myth' from the article because it may convert believers. Quite obviously, that is not a valid complaint. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for proselytizing. We also can't shape the entirety of the article around the whims of one source, when other sources disagree. We can incorporate new sources, but you're proposing we remove them entirely because "Waltke disagrees". You'll need to bring more sources to the table to make that case. How about you spend some time reading up on the topic, and then bring up any quality sources you find?   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Noformation- I'm positive there are many more sources that are similar to Waltke. Do you want to give undue weight to liberal scholarship and just ignore conservative scholarship? My proposal is fairly neutral and you cannot deny that. You seem to have ignored one of my statements: do you want to let your ego crush the faith of weak Christians? Zenkai251 (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't use the word "liberal" that way. It's a positive word in most of the world and you've just labelled yourself as a conservative American wanting to disparage others with a pejorative word. Careful. For most readers it won't work. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So liberalism is just naturally better than conservatism? You just want to ignore the whole other side? Zenkai251 (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Liberalism, by definition, is when field is allowed to explore territory without being constrained by previous dogma. So yes, in academia "liberal" is a good thing. The terms are wholly separate than the way they are used in other contexts (though there is overlap). N^oformation ^Talk 03:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48- I did not notice that statement's "bias". What do you propose we change it to? Zenkai251 (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Dumb question. It's YOU who is seeking to change this article, not me! HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You asked the dumb question first. Did you not know that the statement was already part of the article? I did not put it there. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No, your PROPOSED text is NOT in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You may want to check again. I copy-and-pasted the intro, then removed the redundant "creation myth", then I removed a random quote, then I added "literary" to the last sentence. That's all I did. Zenkai251 (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A lot of forum discussion on both sides
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
RE: as I said, the word "myth" can permanently damage some Christians & Jews who's faith isn't very strong - this is not an argument that means anything at all on WP. We don't exist to reaffirm people's faith and we surely will not sacrifice accuracy for the sake of doing so (WP is WP:NOTCENSORED). We are an encyclopedia of knowledge, not a tool for proselytizing as it appears you would like it to be. Perhaps consider Conservapedia where all sorts of fairy tails are allowed (so long as they don't come from brown or black people's religions). Noformation Talk 02:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Wow noformation, that's low, heartless, and pathetic. Calling people's beliefs "fairy tails" was not called for. My statement was not meant to be an argument; it was more of a side note. Zenkai251 (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC) It's neither low nor pathetic, though it may be heartless in the sense that emotions have nothing to do with epistemology (unless you're a fan of some schools of intuitive deontology of course). I see no reason why Christianity should be treated differently than any of the thousands of other religions in human history - some of which are now deemed fairy tales. Obviously you do, but so did the Greeks when they still served Mount Olympus. Noformation Talk 03:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Way to go Noformation, more personal attacks against someone's religion! You're on a roll, sir! :) Zenkai251 (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC) You are Zenkai, you are not a religion. Saying that religion X is equivalent to religion Y is not a personal attack. You are taking it as one because you associate yourself with that religion. The second I tell you that you're an idiot for believing in it then I've made a personal attack and you're welcome to report me. What I said was not only not a personal attack, but it was a factual statement (unless of course you have some new evidence regarding the validity of Christianity). Noformation Talk 03:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Alright, now I will insult your religion. "The religion of atheism is a myth and a fairy tail." Zenkai251 (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC) If atheism posed a non falsifiable premise of the existence of something for which no one has any proof but believed in anyway then I would agree with you, but alas it doesn't. If by atheism you mean people who state that there is no god then I wouldn't call it a myth or a fairy tale (simply because it doesn't meet the definition of those words) but I would call it bullshit because it's a meaningless statement. You can't say "god doesn't exist" with any sort of impunity any more than you can say "an invisible pink elephant doesn't exist." Proving a negative is not possible. The mistake you're making is thinking that atheism = denying god, but this is not the case. Atheism means "I don't have any reason to believe god exists, therefore I do not believe s/he/it exists." You don't believe that Zeus exists, thus you are an atheist towards Zeus. When you understand why that is, you will understand why I am an atheist towards Yahweh. Noformation Talk 03:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Zenkai251 - stop wasting your time and ours here. Wikipedia cannot give more credence to your religion over any others (including the dead ones Noformation mentioned). It simply MUST treat Christianity's beliefs in the same way as, say, Jainism, Hinduism, Australian Aboriginal dreamtime stories, etc. You are doing your faith no credit in demanding that this project treat Christianity differently. You are entitled to your beliefs, but if you want to see them treated as more true than others, Conservapedia is for you. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned my religion; It's beside the point anyways. The main purpose of my request was to remove the obvious bias. It has undue weight toward liberal scolarship and against conservative scholarship. Both, by the way, are equal in valueZenkai251 (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Since you seemingly learnt nothing from what I said about the word liberal earlier, I should point out that the Liberal Party in my country, Australia, is the more conservative of our two major political parties, and nobody here uses the word as a pejorative. Please stop using it here, in this GLOBAL encyclopaedia, with the narrow meaning it has for American conservatives. It's not just confusing, it shows your own narrow perspective on this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Instead of repeating your feelings, please provide reliable sources from the scholars you think are not represented (thus tipping the NPOV scales). That way, they can be evaluated for their reliability. Jesanj (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Given the lengthy recent discussion on the wording of the lede and the consensus to have 'creation myth' included and wikilinked, I would strongly oppose a rewording of the lede that removes creation myth on the basis of 'redundancy' or any other argument that doesn't demonstrate an awareness of those discussions. (My apologies if I've indented incorrectly - if this comment belongs somewhere above in this section, please feel free to move it.) Colonel Tom 07:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC) edit - To be clear, I'd be likely to oppose the removal if better arguments were put forward - but if arguments are put forward, they should nonetheless be better. Colonel Tom 07:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This whole thing is basically Zenkai's begging for another block. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. He said earlier that perhaps he shouldn't have mentioned his religion. Well, he hardly has to. A glance at his User page tells of his strong Christian faith. It also displays the Christianity Barnstar for his good work on Christianity related pages. There are some strong comments there about the biases of Wikipedia and evil atheists. Sadly, his behaviour doesn't reflect well on his faith. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem confused. I never said atheists were "evil." Zenkai251 (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Just weighing in here to indicate that I also find the initial objections raised in this thread to be without merit and that the attempt to stilt the lead to conform with an individual editor's own beliefs is unacceptable. Pico and others have been very polite and thorough in their responses indicating the scholarly consensus (the kind of thing, I might, add, you would expect to find in most first-year college textbooks) and it seems clear to me that the current wording is both neutral and effective. This thread should be closed and archived. Eusebeus (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I would have to kindly disagree. The intro is very liberal-oriented. There's pretty much no conservative scholarship in it. Zenkai251 (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think what you really mean is that there's no dogmatic, extremist, Christian "scholarship" in it. And did you read ANY of what I said about the word "liberal"? You have neither commented on my point nor changed your approach. Your unwillingness or inability to actually learn and DISCUSS what others say suggests someone with a very closed mind, and makes continuing this discussion pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Liberal" and "conservative", when used to describe theology or scholarship, is entirely different from when those terms are used to describe political parties. Also, I don't want extreme Christian scholarship in it; I just want some conservative scholarship in it. You seem pretty close-minded and unable to accept someone else's views. Zenkai251 (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Read this link created by User:Til Eulenspiegel. Zenkai251 (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

To return to what this thread is all about, as expressed by Zenkai in his first post:

Come on guys, this lead is terrible. Does it really need to have "this is fiction", "the Jews copied all their beliefs from other religions", "Anyone who believes this is an imbecile" all in the lead? Of course I exaggerated slightly, but that's about what I got from reading it. If the article does need that info, at least move it somewhere in the body of the article. Also, do we really need someone's quote right in the lead? The lead should just have a brief overview of what the narrative is about.

My responses are:

• At no point in the lead do we say "this is fiction", or words that could be construed that way (or if Zenkai thinks otherwise, please quote the exact passages).
• At no point does the lead say "the Jews copied all their beliefs from other religions." There is a sourced statement that Genesis borrowed themes from Mesopotamian myths and altered them to fit the idea of a single God, but that's exactly the opposite of saying the Jews borrowed their religion from their neighbours - their neighbours weren't montheistic. This conclusion, by the way, is the academic mainstream - you can find it many, many standard works.
• At no point do we say that "anyone who believes [Genesis 1-2] is an imbecile." We reference perhaps half a dozen sources, all of them people at the very top of the profession, all of them believing Christians or Jews, many of them ordained ministers of religion. We are not calling these men imbeciles, and we are not doubting their faith.
• There's no obvious objection to having a quotation in the lead - none that I can see, anyway.
• A lead is not meant to be just a brief a overview of the rest of an article. It's meant to be a small, stand-alone essay, covering the topic in its own right. This is Wikipedia policy.

Zenkai did offer us a suggested revised lead: "The Genesis creation narrative is contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament), which describes the divine creation of the world, including the first man and woman. Chapter one describes the creation of the world by Elohim (Hebrew for "God") in six days, by means of divine speech, culminating in the creation of mankind, then resting on, blessing and sanctifying the seventh day. Chapter two speaks of YHWH—the personal name of the God of Israel—which is generally vocalized as Yahweh (archaically as "Jehovah") and traditionally rendered in English Bibles as "the Lord"—and how he formed the first man from dust, placed him in the Garden of Eden, and made the first woman from his side. The combined narrative borrows some Mesopotamian literary themes but adapting them to the Israelites' belief in one God (monotheism) as expressed by the shema."

I have no great objections to this, but I can't see that it's any advance on what's already there, either. The biggest change is to drop the direct quotation from Alter. I don't know why Zenkai feels this is an improvement, but I'm willing to listen to his explanation.

To sum up, if Zenkai can't substantiate his concerns more convincingly than he's done so far, this thread should be closed. PiCo (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

re: At no point in the lead do we say "this is fiction"

Common misunderstanding of the word "myth".

WP:LEAD says that it "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects". Not sure that it's a stand-alone essay though.

Agree with the rest of the point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering he has made it clear that his purpose here is to push a Christian apologist POV and to protect people with poor faith from doubting said faith, I can't imagine that he will ever be a constructive influence on the page. He was already brought to AN/I once and narrowly escaped a topic ban for pretty much pushing the exact same crap a few month ago, I suggest that the ban idea be reintroduced if he doesn't quickly adapt to NPOV. It's also problematic that he seems to have a poor grasp of what goes on in theological academia but thinks that it's simply a matter of "conservative" vs "liberal" theologians. He simply doesn't know when to quit. N^oformation ^Talk 02:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what, if anything, can be done to alert readers to the fact that we're not using "myth" as a synonym for "fiction." Maybe the quote from Alter could be moved up and integrated into the first sentence in some way - just a thought. PiCo (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I do. A simple cite note (example) could work. Jesanj (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it but perhaps some will want to revert. Here's the diff: [1] Jesanj (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Good. If it get's reverted, let's take a straw poll on the question of keeping it. PiCo (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Noformation, I don't know why you are always so rude to me. I've never been that rude to you. Also, you know darn well that I'm not pushing an extreme POV. In fact, I follow NPOV much better than you do. And to everyone else: you guys know that there is no universal consensus about whether or not Genesis borrowed themes from the Mesopotamians or whether Genesis is to be considered a "myth". Zenkai251 (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Again: I know that the lead does not say "this is fiction" or "Genesis is a copy from the Mesopotamians". I was just telling everyone what sort of impression the lead may give people. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Zenkai, there is a consensus among scholars that Genesis 1-11 borrows themes from the Babylonians, and you need to read the several sources cited in the article to understand this; on your second point, I would actually agree with you that there's no agreement on the use of the word "myth" to define Genesis 1, but not for the same reasons I imagine you have - there's simply no agreement on what the word "myth" itself means, but for sure there's no mainstream scholar I know of who thinks Genesis 1 is history, either. You really need to do a lot of reading about this, and to read with an open mind, not simply seeking out what you already believe to be the case. PiCo (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That said, your edit to the new note in the first sentence is constructive and I like it. PiCo (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, PiCo.

Also, I know what the sources on the page say, but that's the problem: they're one-sided. Zenkai251 (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think there's another significant point of view that isn't being included, then give us links (here) to it and it can be considered. (Give us the author, book title and page number, and if possible a link to google books - I like using google books because it makes verification easy, but it's not essential). PiCo (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ref note on creation myth

I disagree with the note. I'd rather discuss it than simply revert, but I don't think it's a positive addition. The wording of the note currently implies (by its very existence) that the story is either a historical account, or there is active suspicion it may be a historical account. This is a problem on two counts: I am not aware of a scholarly, academic source which suspects that Genesis is a historical account outside of (perhaps) Christian/Jewish/Muslim theology; it is also not our job to speak to the veracity of religious claims in this manner. Even without those problems, I don't believe the note is useful; the term is linked, providing an accessible definition in the very first sentence which should dissuade any interested reader from the notion that it speaks to the historicity of the narrative.

This note appears to have been added to appease the drive-by complaints from religious editors who haven't taken the time to actually read the literature or links. We don't cater to those same drive-by whims on other articles: Atheism, Evolution, Abortion, or nearly any other controversial topic often encounters and rejects these same sorts of baseless appeals. If we are going to add a note, the only appropriate text I can think of would simply copy the 1-sentence definition from creation myth. That would avoid the 2 problems I outlined initially, though it would still suffer from the same uselessness. It seems to me the note should be removed until it's amply discussed. I'm not sure a straw pole would help in this case - just good old fashion discussion and consensus building, not voting.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the note is a good addition. It does not imply that the narrative may be historical; it just simply defines "creation myth" in the context that it is being used. Zenkai251 (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It did not define creation myth... that was my suggestion. The prior note only said that Genesis wasn't necessarily false. I don't know how to take that but as an implication that Genesis might be true.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't believe that there is even the slightest chance it could be true? I still think the note is useful. Zenkai251 (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The way it was originally was much better. Wait until PiCo and others weigh in before changing it again. Zenkai251 (talk) 05:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think my current wording works pretty well. Lets see what PiCo has to say. Zenkai251 (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I added The academic usage of "myth" does not entirely equate to "falsehood". I think this is a good addition. It should stay. Zenkai251 (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You're at 3 reverts. Stop. You need to establish consensus first before reverting others like this. Also, my personal religious convictions are irrelevant to this discussion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've made an alteration to point readers to the source for the definition - my version reads: ""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 (see article Creation myth for further details)." But this article in general, and this sentence in particular, seem to have the stability of a snowflake on a barbeque. Zenkai, I don't think your latest edit I mean the one Mannjess reverted) was really all that good. PiCo (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"Not entirely" is not acceptable. "The academic usage of 'myth' does not equate to falsehood" is correct and NPOV, adding 'not entirely' suggests 'almost but not entirely'. Dougweller (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

@PiCo Eh... I think that might be more complicated than we need. It would be nice if we could simply write "A creation myth is..." and then add a ref to the end pointing to Enyclopedia Britannica. I assume we can't nest refs like that. Also, would linking "creation myth" be acceptable to remove the parenthetical note to "see article Creation myth"? I'll point out that I'm still opposed to the ref note in general. (I do, however, think both my revision and yours are better than the original and not inherently NPOV problems.)   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm equivocal about this note myself. The only reason for having it is that it might pre-empt those readers who see the word "myth" and react. But would the note actually help? Anyway, it seems we really have two questions, whether to have a note at all, and if so, what the wording should be. (I can imagine, for example, that we put the note in and then find people wanting to change it by inserting this "not entirely" phrase or something similar). PiCo (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The benefit of having a wikilink is that it enables people who want to know more about the bluelinked term to click through and find out. And this article is doing that with creation myth.

It's creation myth, not just myth, that's being bluelinked. If it was just 'myth' and we didn't have an article on 'creation myth', then the note might serve some purpose - but we do have that article.

There's consensus to have 'creation myth' in the lede. Let it define itself with the bluelink. I appreciate that there's concern that some readers will think that myth equates to fiction. In the case of Genesis, the consensus of theologians is that the Genesis narrative IS fiction - it is not an accurate account of creation, nor is it intended to be read as such. It is not taken literally by a huge majority of contemporary theologians and it is not taken literally by a huge majority of believers in the faiths that have Genesis as one of their scriptures. It is, as it happens, a creation myth. I do not say this to cause offence to any editor - I sincerly hope it does not - but to clarify my position.

The first sentence of 'creation myth' reads "A creation myth or creation story is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it". That's a pretty good definition, and to my mind, it's the definition that most readers would have vaguely in mind when they see the phrase 'creation myth'. It's well defined already, and adding a note doesn't aid any understanding of the term, IMHO.

The text "The academic usage of "myth" does not entirely equate to "falsehood"" has been reverted and should remain so. If there has to be an explanatory note, the current text - ""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 (see article Creation myth for further details)." - is NPOV and well composed, but I'd prefer to let the link speak for itself. Colonel Tom 09:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the text is not appropriate, but disagree that wikilinking creation myth is all that is required. For the uninitiated, the term may be jarring. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And that's why it is linked. So they can... read. Maybe. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the link isn't always enough, and in the case of this link, it doesn't go into a full description but rather . It would be better to indicate that it is technically a creation myth, or academically called.... --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I like Dougweller's wording for the note. Zenkai251 (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Not many others do so I think we need to find different wording. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it should be similar to Dougweller's anyway. What do you propose? Zenkai251 (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed re-write of first para of lead

This discussion has suggested that there's a degree of unhappiness with the first part of the first paragraph - not major unhappiness, but some. I'm pretty happy with the paragraph over-all, but I also think the first part could be improved. At present it reads:

The Genesis creation narrative is a creation myth contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament), which describes the divine creation of the world, including the first man and woman. Chapter one describes the creation of the world by Elohim (Hebrew for "God") in six days, by means of divine speech, culminating in the creation of mankind, then resting on, blessing and sanctifying the seventh day. Chapter two speaks of YHWH—the personal name of the God of Israel—which is generally vocalized as Yahweh (archaically as "Jehovah") and traditionally rendered in English Bibles as "the Lord"—and how he formed the first man from dust, placed him in the Garden of Eden, and made the first woman from his side. The combined narrative is "compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends,"[1] borrowing some Mesopotamian themes but adapting them to the Israelites' belief in one God as expressed by the shema.[2]

Assuming we've agreed to keep the word "myth" (a long-standing consensus) while dropping the explanatory note, I'd like to suggest this (only the first sentence has been changed, and the most important change is in bold):

"The Genesis creation narrative is the primary creation myth of the Hebrew bible/Old Testament, describing the divine creation of the world, including the first man and woman, in accordance with the monotheistic theology of early Judaism. Chapter one describes the creation of the world by Elohim (Hebrew for "God") in six days, by means of divine speech, culminating in the creation of mankind, then resting on, blessing and sanctifying the seventh day. Chapter two describes YHWH—the personal name of the God of Israel—forming the first man from dust, placing him in the Garden of Eden, and making the first woman from his side. The combined narrative is "compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends,"[1] borrowing some Mesopotamian themes but adapting them to the Israelites' belief in one God as expressed by the shema.[2]

Explanations for the parts in bold:

1. It's qualified as the primary creation myth of the OT because it's not the only one - there are traces of creation-by-divine-battle in the Pslams and elsewhere; but these have been heavily overwritten by the Priestly authors and the Priestly Genesis narrative is by far the dominant voice.

2. It's too complicated to explain in the lead in detail, but scholars trace Judaism to the early Second Temple period - before that it's called Yahwism, and it's not the same (Yahwism was monolatrous instead of monotheistic - Yahweh was the Most Important One, not the One And Only). So I'd like to put this reference to "early Judaism in there.

3. I've removed material about the pronunciation of YHWH - not really suitable for this article.

For discussion. PiCo (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Since we just barely discuss creation-by-divine-battle in day 5 it might be too much to introduce this in the lede. And to describe JEPD without actually discussing it probably isn't necessary. It also brings another debate into the lede. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Walter. I don't think qualifying "creation myth" with "primary" (to hint that there are others) is the same thing as discussing chaoskampf - but if the general feeling is that we shld drop "primary" that's fine by me. For yr other point, where in that para is JEPD even hinted at? PiCo (talk) 06:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your suggested lede has the same information about the pronunciation of YHWH as before. What change do you have in mind here?

I quite liked the "contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis" and would prefer to retain it. I also would prefer to have 'primary' out of the lede for pretty much the reason Walter Gorlitz suggests. I'm afraid I prefer the original version at this point, though I have no vehement objections to your proposal, and I thank you for trying to improve this. Colonel Tom 06:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, JEPD isn't hinted at. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the glitch over removing the pronunciation of the name of God - I've fixed it now. Ok, "primary" goes out - I haven't done it here, but I won't ask for it. PiCo (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The current par has "which is generally vocalized as Yahweh (archaically as "Jehovah")" and your proposed change removes this. (The 'current par' you have above doesn't contain this, hence my mentioning it here. :)) I support this good change. It's not necessary in the lede. Colonel Tom 07:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I was editing the wrong part of my post - sorry - fixed it - thanks :) PiCo (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• I like this, too, and I would support using primary creation myth with a follow up in the body that observes the vestigial existence of other traditions elsewhere. That to me is rigorous and provides an interesting context for the principal Judaic myth. However, if others feel it unnecessary, it is not essential. Glad that silly note has gone! Eusebeus (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I too support the proposed change to the lede, I assume creation myth will be wiki linked?Theroadislong (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Eusebeus, there's already a short treatment of chaoskampf mythology in the main body of the article (see section 2.3). Theroadislong, yes, we'll blue-link creation myth. PiCo (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know that - I should have written, "with the follow up" etc.... But the point is that we see the emergence of the Genesis narrative over and against competing narratives from the (pre-)monolatrous period. In other words, not only do I like your proposed wording, but would suggest even greater emphasis (The Genesis creation narrative is the primary (but not the sole) creation myth of the Hebrew bible/Old Testament)... " I suspect few readers realise that Genesis represents but one of several traditions that informed the pentateuchal texts. And it is, of course, an important point. Eusebeus (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose (at least in lead, and especially in the first ¶). "Primary" creation myth suggests that there's some other for Judaism/Christianity, which I am unaware of ("secondary" myths), which are not treated here on Wikipedia and are unsuitable for the lead, IMO, even with refs (as this is about the Genesis myth). I think it should be mentioned in the body of the article down there in sections about "traces of polytheism" and divine chaos-struggle (I think there is one; I've not managed to read the entire article, being focused on the lead these past weeks). The second addition is a redundant and more clumsy statement of the last sentence of ¶2. I support the removal of Yahweh/Jehovah as it's tangentially related and has caused trouble above. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 18:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

John, I take it that what you're opposed to is the word "primary" in the sentence "The Genesis creation narrative is the primary creation myth of the Hebrew bible/Old Testament...", rather than the entire sentence? PiCo (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Chrysostom has a point; I am unaware of any other account of origins given in Judaism/Christianity. Wekn reven ^Confer 11:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Not in modern Judaism and Christianity, but it was present as a sub-text right up to the time of Christ - Jesus' walking on water would have been understood by early Jewish Christians as a reference to God's conquest of the storm-waters. (You can find this mentioned in some modern commentaries on Luke - it's quite interesting). Still, if it's going to cause confusion, it's best to leave it out of the lead. PiCo (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Beyond it being confusing (I'm aware of it from Bock's 2-vol commentary on Luke - where he is of course dismissive - and Brueggemann on Genesis, along with the ICC, CC, and NJBC; I may have seen something similar in Luke Timothy Johnson), which, on second thought, it would be (unless it launched directly in to the other myths, and, as I said, this article is the Genesis myth: in any case, it would make the lead even more confusing and complex, needlessly), it shouldn't be in the lead - but I may support a section mentioning it and the various scholarly conjectures in the body of the article, possibly in a section on "traces of polytheism" or "theogony"/"cosmogony" or something similar. (It is only tangentially related to Genesis, as, it has nothing to do with "Genesis", but with "creation myth": it should be, IMO, Wikilinked in further reading or listed in the articles on those books, such as Pss, Matt, Job and Luke that have traces of it.) The lead now mentions: the Genesis myth, a short overview of it, the important Hebrew words in it (should add the LXX translations), and all major views of it (ex nihilo or rearrangment). Starting to mention others would require us to do something such as change "Elohim" to "note: means gods, and is a trace of polytheism or monolatrism of the pre-Hezekiah period": you can see, that to remain consistent, such a minor change opens the article to losing focus of "Genesis" altogether, losing whatever tightness it might possess, and becoming a "Reconstructed Judaeo-Christian creation mythology" article. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 16:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Errr ... so we drop "primary"? PiCo (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Chrysostom, 'Elohim' is a plural Hebrew noun combined with a singular Hebrew verb. It does not mean "gods", as you just put it. Hebrew is a very unique language, and only one with a sufficient understanding of it (or a similar language, such as Aramaic or Arabic) would be able to make the connection. Yes, PiCo, I agree: we should drop 'primary'. Wekn reven ^Confer 10:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've made the edits. One extra edit was to delete the reference to God resting on the Sabbath - every study I read is clear that this is not the Sabbath, which isn't introduced/instituted till Moses receives the Commandments, although it looks forward to that event. Please check for links, accuracy etc. PiCo (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC) I've just noticed that Colon wants to retain "mentioned in the first two chapters of Genesis" or equivalent. I'll try to work that in tomorrow. PiCo (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"Colon". Heh. I've been called worse, I guess. ;) (Perhaps I'll update my anachronistic sig someday and make it easier to grab.) Yes, thanks, PiCo - it's no big deal, but I do think that "in the first two chapters of Genesis" or equivalent is a useful part of the lede. Colonel Tom 12:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sgt Colon - dounds like Terry Pratchett :). Sorry, don't know what happened. Anyway, "first two chapters" is back in, though not done by me, so thanks whoever did it. PiCo (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Yahweh" and "Jehovah" need to be added back in to the article. I didn't notice until they were gone that YHWH links to tetragrammaton, and Yahweh and Jehovah each have distinct pages, which are both relevant to the article and contain much valuable information (due to the desire to have interlinked information; I originally supported the removal of Yahweh and Jehovah from the lead for reasons listed above): if the phrase "literary criticism" appears in this article, it would be wikilinked, yes? Not just words related to the article, as then one gets the "Wikipedia Mathematics" phenomenon (e.g. Wikipedia articles on mathematics appear to be a Wiki-within-the-Wiki, as hardly anything links to them and they link to hardly anything outside of mathematics: once you get in to maths, you're staying there). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 21:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

John, I disagree about the need for these names of God. The very real point to be made is that there are indeed two names used in the two chapters in Hebrew. Just why this is so has been the subject of much debate and specualtion, not to mention being foundational to the source-critical approach to the Pentateuch. We don't and can't go into all that - there's not enough room, and the details belong elsewhere, in other articles. Perhaps the right place for your links is in the See Also section? PiCo (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS on [74]

This statement, recently added: "The use of a rib from man's side, instead of a head bone or a foot bone, implies the woman to be his equal--loved and protected--rather his ruler or his slave being trampled under foot.[74]" is sourced by a statement from Ellen G. White: is this considered even close to a reliable source, let alone a scholarly one? It strikes me as not only unreliable, but essentially a primary religious source due to the import of her writing for Seventh-Day Adventists; it strikes me as if quoting the Book of Mormon on the historical Jesus. If this statement or a similar one is held by other exegetes, a scholarly source should be found to support it. If it is not, it should be excised. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 16:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a common-enough interpretation in modern exegesis - I'm pretty sure we'd find it in Phyllis Trible for example. So finding a better source than Ellen won't be a problem. My only problem is that it's just one possible interpretation among many. I'll see if I can work it up into something more "scholarly". PiCo (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So what your are saying, calling it a religious source, is that Martin Luther is an unreliable source, or that Isaac Newton is an unreliable source (he wrote more on Bible Prophecy than on mathematics). Most conservative sources are likely to be religious sources whether they are "scholarly" or not. White is the most published woman author in the world in more than 100 languages and is well known for her writings on Biblical topics. The Book of Mormon is pseudographia. White's books are commentary on the Bible. SmittysmithIII (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read something very similar in David Carr, who is modern (the book is 2011) and acceptable - we can use him. PiCo (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(Later) I've added the Carr book to the bibliography, but this isn't in it. A pity, as it's a good book with a good chapter in the Garden story. Nevertheless, I know I've read it somewhere, and I'll keep looking. It's quite a mainstream interpretation, honest. PiCo (talk) 12:00, 6 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Wikipedia 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)

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ["that's the wording at the very top of both". You subsequently corrected yourself, but only after I'd clicked on the "edit" button to add my most recent reply. Look, you clearly want to fight with me about a bunch of pedantic issues. I'm not interested in doing that. My initial comment was "the reliability of sources matters", and that if the OP wants a change reflected in the article, we need reliable secondary sources to consider that change. I stand by that comment, in accordance with WP:V. If you still disagree with that comment, you have a few options: 1) make a proposal, which we can discuss specifically, 2) discuss the application of WP:V at a noticeboard, 3) raise an issue and hold an RfC to see if we're applying policy consistently to this article. I'd welcome you to do any of those, but I'm not going to argue about whitespace, and whether we really have to abide by RS.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected.

Your initial content was the reliability of sources matters, and it started with "Wikipedia 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 "Wikipedia 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 N^oformation ^Talk 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 Wikipedia is not paper. St John Chrysostom ^view/_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 Wikipedia 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 ^view/_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 [inevitably] miss major blocks of them, as my years-long [I've been here as about two hundred IPs since most wikilinks were red] 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 ^view/_my bias 12:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sweeping changes

• 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^view/_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 Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia. St John Chrysostom ^view/_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 ^view/_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 ^view/_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 [this one's in every modern exegesis]: 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 [and/or metaphorical and/or allegorical] 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 ^view/_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 [referencing the poll that has 26% of US citizens as geocentrists], 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 Wikipedia 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 ^view/_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 ^view/_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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is based on scholarly consensus when it fact it is based on reliable sources of which scholarly consensus makes up only a small portion. "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)." Please notice the emphasis on "significant minority views". There are many other things that Wikipedia 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 ^view/_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 Wikipedia! Eusebeus (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Eusebeus, if you feel you are ruing Wikipedia, 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 ^{> haneʼ} 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 ^view/_my bias 23:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note is redundant, how about "Genesis creation narrative is a [[creation myth|creation myth or story]]"

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) 23:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, correct me if I'm wrong here. My understanding is that the words 'narrative' and 'story' aren't in the first sentence of the lede of 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 "[[creation myth|creation myth or story]]" 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. N^oformation ^Talk 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 17:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

@PiCo who wrote "there's really no way to placate those for whom 'myth' is an emotive trigger". I disagree completely. On the contrary, there is no way to placate those for whom "myth" is an intentional poke at those to whom the account is more than simply myth. What those of you who rely on "academic" credentials fail to understand is that it's offensive to many. While I full understand its use, it's underlying offence is greater than its academic credentials. It is hubris to continue to insist on its use in this context without expounding on its meaning or at least clarifying it. However I also understand that is article is patrolled by a small group of academics who don't think like humans and their POV will continue to be exerted here. --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. N^oformation ^Talk 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. Wikipedia 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. N^oformation ^Talk 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 Wikipedia 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. N^oformation ^Talk 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, "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 05:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have edited and watch several other "religious subjects" and none have this problem. --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) 22:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It would seem that there are certain editors who are determined to see that only one side of the subject is represented here, which is in violation of 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 ^view/_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 ^{> haneʼ} 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, Wikipedia 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 ^{> haneʼ} 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. N^oformation ^Talk 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. N^oformation ^Talk 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? N^oformation ^Talk 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. N^oformation ^Talk 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)