Genesis creation narrative -> Genesis creation myth[edit]I take issue to the page being called "narrative" as opposed to "myth." I understand there was a monster discussion recently resulting in a move, just a quick count of !votes shows about a 68% support, which doesn't seem very high. The big thing it seems as if we're giving this myth special consideration over the many many other creation myths. Example: Mesoamerican creation myths, Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Sumerian creation myth, Chinese creation myth, Pelasgian creation myth, Tongan creation myth. Theres also a ton of * mythology pages for various belief systems, and other * creation myth pages that redirect to other belief structures. None of which blatantly replace "myth" with "narrative". The naming of this page is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. — raeky (talk | edits) 22:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)I think it should, it's an egregious infraction of WP:NPOV, the discussion to change this page shouldn't of been limited to just this page, but all creation mythology pages. To treat this myth differently is POV pushing. Since the move discussion wasn't for all creation myth pages, then it should be considered invalid. — raeky (talk | edits) 22:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Raeky, the argument you have made is a legit one superficially. however you if you look in "Category:Creation myths". "Anceint cultures" use that naming scheme. However no "Sacred Texts" of Modern Religions are singled out as creation myths. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So your saying this myth is better then other myths? It's still clearly under the academic use of "myth" and "mythology." To label this myth separate, or special, from other religions is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Either rename them all to avoid the word "myth" or rename this one back. — raeky (talk | edits) 22:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it needs to be a mass move of every other living religion's creation myth. As it is then POV to Favor them as myth. Wikipieda is written for "Average Joe" not Anthropologist, Religous Studies Proffesors and such. I agree this is a Creation myth but average Joe comes here and freaks becuase it an attack on their Religion. We have no idea what Anicient Sumerians Called thier Creation Myth thus we Call it Sumerian creation myth. but this is Living religions a sacred text thus we don't pass judgement on whether it is more or less true than the mormon one. The last move discussion was an overwhelming support for this tittle after Two massive Stalemates with no consensusWeaponbb7 (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What average joe you talking about? A Judeo-Christian average joe? What about those Hindi average joes? or Atheist average joes? they not matter? Wikipedia always takes the academic approach to writing articles in this matter, and in academia it's a myth. I mean if we're talking about United States average joes, probably around 30% of them doesn't even know what the word "narrative" means, since the functional literacy rate is pretty horrid among adults. Should we just convert the English Wikipedia into the Simple English Wikipedia for those "average joes?" — raeky (talk | edits) 23:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To add, your "overwhelming consensus" was about 68%, or 17.5 supports to 8 opposes. Doesn't seem overwhelming to me, clearly not a WP:SNOW case. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I encourage you too look through the archive link i provided below at the beginin of this discussion. As it appears You have your mind set on the current "injustice of POV." I doubt I can change your stance. I just warn you that this type of page move brings out the worst in people. The "narrative" term is actually more commonly user then the phrase "Genesis Creation myth" and Narrative was the Big Compromise. I can't stop you sense you made up you mind already. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly after such a hugely long drawn out fight and stale mates, that being able to ram through a "huge compromise" change makes it justified right? After any such huge discussion like that the people who are not the die-hard POV pushers would of long given up making it far easier to ram threw a decision. I can't imagine how someone looking objectively at this can't see how this is not a neutral point of view with the other creation myths. Only someone who firmly believes this myth is 100% true, the word of God and the like, can justify that. By renaming this belief system to a non-myth page name is... wrong. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You already seem to be acting WP:BATTLEGROUND mode I advise you to calm down I am not an Enemy. I am an anthropologist, I beleive in Evolution (as its a Quarter of my displine) and get pissy with Bible thumpers. I am no Fundementalist as you seem to be implying. Niether was it "rammed through" it was typical "7 Day Discussion" for page move. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose by all the Christianity stuff on your user page and how you're referring to Genesis as "Sacred Texts" would of lead me to belief your likely biased. If that is an incorrect assumption, I apologize. By "rammed through" I mean after months of discussion and 6 page move proposals, wearing down the opposition enough that enough has given up would be "ramming" through a nomination. You'd think after 6 failed attempts that would of said enough that there wasn't consensus to rename, but if you keep WP:TE enough I suppose you can accomplish your goal? I don't think a nomination after such a protracted discussion and so many failed attempts is valid, but thats just me. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Review the arguments made here becuase there gonna come up again Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt that 68% support is sufficient consensus for a major issue of NPOV such as this, and I also doubt that it should be decided by consensus. I think there will be a clear right on this issue. It's my impression that "creation myth" is the most proper way to describe it. While the words "creation narrative" are more often used, "creation myth" is used in academia. The sources should be checked to determine if I'm right here. Wikipedia determines what is the most correct way of labeling something according to the most reliable sources and names articles accordingly. Thus what we need to determine is not which name is most popular, [2] [3] but which appears most in the most reliable sources. I think this is what WP:TITLE says, and it should be simple to follow. BE——Critical__Talk 23:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- we had two Stale mate of No consensus and i think 6 page move proposals (SINCE JANUARY 2010) totall this is the way consensus has swung. I am not opposed to a page move maybe mediation or something like that. Lets not jump on the Pagemove wagon again Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your second search wasn't in quotes, "creation myth" in quotes nets About 307,000 results and "creation narrative" nets About 98,200 results, so by those highly-unscientific numbers myth is 3x more popular. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just yanked this out of Archive 10, I highly encourage you to look at all the arguements in previous discussions
|
|
Genesis creation account
|
Genesis creation myth
|
Percentages
|
| General search
|
1,660
|
1,140
|
59% / 41%
|
| 1800–1899
|
4
|
3
|
57% / 43%
|
| 1900–1949
|
4
|
45
|
8% / 92%
|
| 1950–1969
|
29
|
84
|
26% / 74%
|
| 1970–1989
|
185
|
219
|
46% / 54%
|
| 1990–2010
|
624
|
606
|
51% / 49%
|
| Results lost
|
814 (49.0%)
|
183 (16.1%)
|
Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue here is neutrality with other creation myths, if we search scholar.google.com for "creation myth" we get about 10,800 and "creation narrative" we get about 2,270. We can play with numbers all day, but in academia your going to find the word myth used the most. Look at all the pages of past archives on creation myths for this being explained a zillion times. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a link to the definition of the word myth. The term has come to mean something that is false, which explains why people oppose its use, although that is not the original meaning. Also, I suspect that when the term first entered the English language it was used to describe Greek mythology not the Old Testament. Is there any reason why we cannot use the term "story" instead, which refers to an account that may or may not be true? TFD (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We discussed that too. Some felt story was little better than myth since it implies some on made it up .again Encourage people to look in the archive 10 Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTACADEMIA - Wikipedia is not: Academic language. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is relevant to a style issue (and one I agree with), not one of content. If we can use "myth" and explain why it is better to the average reader, then we are ok. --Cyclopiatalk 00:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If we have to go at exteneded lenghth to say to reader "your so ignorant. Look it is neutral due as we use it" its no neutral Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It wouldn't be as patronizing as you suggest: people come to an encyclopedia to learn after all, and -guess what?- they could also learn that "myth" means something different in other contexts. And even if it was: why would it be not neutral? --Cyclopiatalk 00:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NPOV applies within individual entries and not to entry titles as they compare to each other. Please see WP:NAME for entry naming conventions. This was all discussed at length. "Genesis creation narrative" and "Genesis creation myth" are on par in usage. Genesis creation story is far and away the most commonly used, however, and "story" and "narrative" are synonyms. BTW, most other creation myths do not have "creation myth" in the name. Please review the category and see Voluspa, Enuma Elish, etc. No one is going around adding "creation myth" to their titles.Griswaldo (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe your wrong in saying NPOV is irrelevant for article naming. And just because there was a protracted discussion with 6 failed attempts in a row to rename the article then a successful 7th attempt was made means we can't discuss it anymore. If anything it just is showing a pattern of WP:TE that finally wore down the opposers till they go their way. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also please understand that the entry had a very bad title for quite some time -- Creation according to Genesis. That tile, and not "genesis creation myth" was the long stable one. This title is far superior to both. The last thing I want to say is that this page is unfortunately hampered by a great number of extremists ... of two varieties ... who have little concern for academic usage and real scholarship. On one side are individuals who want all reference to "myth" gone because this account is to some degree factual or otherwise meaningful to them. On the other side we have people who only show up here because they follow the afore mentioned religious editors to this entry from others that deal with the culture wars arenas surrounding "evolution" and "creationism." This entry is about an ancient story. If you have nothing to add here other than culture wars nonsense please do us all a favor and don't. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think after an hour and a half of discussion would qualify it for MEDCABAL... give it a few days, let more people weigh in, not everyone who watches this page that could comment has even been given the opportunity too.. I'm not oppose to mediation, just think it's a bit premature at the moment. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly agree. I didn't participate in the original discussion only because I wasn't aware it was taking place. There needs to be uniformity across all religious articles to adhere to WP:NPOV. If consensus dictates that they should be narrative, then fine, but singling out one to be different is an egregious violation. This discussion needs to take place again, and it needs to be listed (if a change to narrative is warranted) across the board in all other Category:Creation myth articles too. Jess talk cs 00:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a red herring of whale sized proportions. Name one entry that includes content about a creation narrative that is part of a living religion or belief system that has "creation myth" in the title. That's right there are none.Griswaldo (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think that no one still believes in the Chinese creation myth, Mesoamerican creation myths or Ancient Egyptian creation myths, you haven't researched this nearly enough. I've personally met people who believed in all 3, and to be quite honest, my life experiences are fairly limited. Also, please scale down your tone. This is quickly leading into personal attack and assuming bad faith territory. If you must, please respond below (at the end of the thread) so I can keep up with the replies. Jess talk cs 04:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you'll need more than your personal experiences to satisfy our standards. While there are Neo-pagans (and various new-agers) who have "revitalized", "resurrected" and/or "reconstructed" most well known ancient belief systems those are not comparable because those very belief systems survived in scholarship and not in living traditions. You know as well as I do what I meant and you're just playing games. I will scale down my tone when you all scale down the disruption. We have too much of it already from both directions. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This last reply is unambiguously WP:ABF territory. You need to work constructively with other editors or there's no point in continuing this discussion with you. Jess talk cs 04:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course why would you - WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. I'm glad that I've given you a convenient excuse for it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure what your agreeing to there is uniformity. Living Religions are not called myths, and anceint Religions that no one adhere to we name "Culture Creation Myth" and even then if there is a source text we still dont name it myth. Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that "We can play with numbers all day, but in academia your going to find the word myth used the most." If the WP:RS are from academia, Wikipedia should reflect that terminology. We write for the common man, but we reflect the most reliable sources; we do not reflect common wisdom unless it is in accord with RS. Again, people here are arguing popularity; they are also acting like this is a vote. Those are false standards, and should be dropped. The popularity that matters is within academia. Could someone confirm for me whether I'm right about it? Sorry, not a scholar on this subject :P BE——Critical__Talk 01:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are incorrect about the most common name in scholarship. It is not "Genesis creation myth."Griswaldo (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, okay. Well if you say so. Seriously, how does this contribute to the discussion? We have statistics with links posted above. Do you have anything to support this assertion? Jess talk cs 04:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @Weaponbb I didn't agree there is uniformity. I agreed this change breaks necessary uniformity. Even if we accept your argument, then the creation myths of all religions which currently have adherents would need to have their articles renamed to "narrative". I've seen absolutely no argument which indicates why this article should be changed without others, so either 1) this was a change intended to be made across the board, in which case having the discussion on this article was wildly inappropriate, or 2) the change was only intended for this article, which is an egregious violation of WP:NPOV. Jess talk cs 02:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. BE——Critical__Talk 02:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT convention taking place here?
- The long standing name of the entry was not "Genesis creation myth", but Creation according to Genesis. The change to "Genesis creation myth" was recent and was controversial ever since it happened.
- Most other entries about creation myths do not have "creation myth" in the name. See Enûma Eliš, Mashya and Mashyana, Völuspá, etc. If you look at the creation myth category you will find less than a handful with "creation myth" in the name and all are from ancient or otherwise non-living civilizations which also contain the name of the civilization in the title.
- "Genesis creation myth" is not the most common name used in dispassionate (non-religious) scholarship about these passages. Genesis creation story is. ("Genesis creation account" is even more common but once very old sources and avowedly Christian sources are removed it is probably not).
What else do you need to know? Please stop making assumptions about what happened when this name was decided upon without understanding 1) the recent history of this debate, 2) the category of entries similar to this one and 3) even more importantly the relevant scholarly usage of the various terms being debated. Are there two identifiable myths in the narrative covered by this entry? YES THERE ARE, which is why we don't shy away from using the term "myth" in the entry itself and we resist the recurring calls to remove the term from the entry. However, we also follow WP:UCN and reliable sources tell us that "Genesis creation myth" is not the most common label for this narrative so we find a more suitable alternative. Personally I'd vote for "Genesis creation story" but at least narrative is a synonym, unlike "myth".Griswaldo (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, please respond at the end of the thread... inline replies are just hard to deal with.
- Second of all, that there are less than a handful of articles named "myth" in the category says nothing. There are only a handful of articles in the category to begin with. Those which don't include "myth" have very specific names. An alternate proposal would be to rename the article "Genesis" in line with that precedent, but to avoid conflict with the disambig page it would have to be categorized as mythology like the other articles, and I imagine you'd probably object to "Genesis (mythology)" as well.
- Thirdly, please support your assertions with data. Everybody's making assertions here, and yours are no better than anybody else's.
- Fourthly, (and repeated from above), please scale down your tone. This is quickly leading into personal attack and assuming bad faith territory. Jess talk cs 04:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On your fourth point please understand that we're plagued by disruptive trolling of all kinds here. Make of that comment what you will. The data is in the last archive, all over the place. It would be very instructive if you all actually familiarized yourselves with the extensive discussions that took place back then (especially since there have been many inaccurate statements/assumptions about those discussions flung about already). Several refined scholar and Google books searches were made and they all point to exactly what I claim about "Genesis creation account" and "Genesis creation story" being most prevalent. If you don't believe me concerning the type of sources that comprise the former option then I guess that's the one you favor? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, per "... and I imagine you'd probably object to 'Genesis (mythology)' as well", you are clearly clueless as to what I would support or object to. The alternative name that I would happily support based on personal preference is "Judeo-Christian creation myth", but that name has never had any traction and, admittedly, is not common in reliable sources either. But it is one of my personal preferences and I've mentioned that several times in the those pesky past discussions you refuse to look at. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not you feel that this discussion is warranted, it is happening now. Statistics and links have been provided above which clearly indicate a higher prevalence of "creation myth" than "creation account". If you have statistics that are relevant, please cite them instead of making assertions that they're out there somewhere. Furthermore, we can make this even simpler; I see no reason to humor your argument that the popularity of a myth should determine its classification. Can you give me a solid reason (other than a blanket assertion) that this article should be handled differently than, say, Mesoamerican creation myths, Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Sumerian creation myth, Chinese creation myth, Pelasgian creation myth or Tongan creation myth? 04:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Jess talk cs
- The statistics above show that "creation account" is more prevalent. I'll reproduce the others since you are hell bent against looking in the archive. For shame. BTW congratulations listing every single entry about a specific creation myth, or set of such myths, that use the term in the title.Griswaldo (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Past search results[edit]Note in these two that the time frame is limited to the last 20 years. This is why "creation account" lags behind (as I explained above about removing old sources ...)Griswaldo (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from archive) Here are the results I get for 1990-2010 for the following phrases in both Books and Scholar:
Google Books
- Genesis creation myth - 233 [4]
- Genesis creation account - 624 [5]
- Genesis creation story - 637 [6]
Google Scholar
- Genesis creation myth - 55 [7]
- Genesis creation account - 292 [8]
- Genesis creation story - 370 [9]
I've provided the links for immediate verification. What I did was - exact phrase delimited to the last 20 years of publications. Myth lags way behind.Griswaldo (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from archive)Updated results of your analysis (1990–2010), with totals for Genesis creation account including results for "Genesis creation account", "creation account in Genesis" and "creation account of Genesis"; totals for Genesis creation myth including results for "Genesis creation myth", "creation myth in Genesis" and "creation myth of Genesis"; and totals for Genesis creation story including results for "Genesis creation story", "creation story in Genesis" and "creation story of Genesis".
Google Books
Google Scholar
In Books results, "account" and "story" are higher, but not dramatically so. In Scholar results, the results for "account" and "story" are dramatically higher. To the extent that valid conclusions can be drawn from this analysis, I think you are partially correct. So, I want to make clear that my "strong oppose" in this section applies only to the suggestion to rename to "Biblical Creation", and not to any other proposal.
Noting that, I must again repeat the point that publications which prefer "creation account" or "creation story" over "creation myth" seem to have a greater tendency to adopt the point of view that the Genesis creation account/myth/story is factual rather than approaching the issue from a neutral, academic standpoint; see e.g., [10][11][12][13][14]. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's fairly obvious that everyone is trying to skirt the issue and play with numbers. All of those stats have one key thing in it Genesis and they're by nature biased, since all those sources include Christian author's books which by their very nature is going to avoid the word myth. What matters is how it's used in academics and specifically in academia is the Genesis account worded differently then other creation beliefs? Thats the issue we're bringing up. The stats I gave above clearly show that "creation myth" has far more sources, but if you tack on Genesis, your results get skewed by Christian authors who are NOT academics for the most part which is irrelevant for this discussion. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fairly obvious"? Can you back that assertion. You have clearly not looked at the 1500 Google scholar hits linked to above because I assure you they are publications written by academics in well known journals of sociology, history, etc. You have to add "Genesis" to actually get the correct content. Part of the problem here is that this story is important in scholarship outside of the realm of "myth" studies. Adherents who believe in this story -- literally, allegorically, metaphorically, etc. etc. do not necessarily engage it as a "myth" (in the scholarly sense). In scholarship on the various practices of these adherents (even if these practices are purely discursive) treating the story as a "myth" may be misleading and unhelpful. It has nothing to do with being non-academic Christian writers. When discussing the ancient context it might be most appropriate to call the story a myth, but in context of the more recent history of Judaism and Christianity it may not be. In the end, once again, we follow the scholarship here. Once again the scholarship, which is disspasionate and non-religious, favors "creation story" ten times as much as "creation myth" when discussing this content.Griswaldo (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I'm going to have to side with Griswaldo here. After carefully re-reviewing the past search result information it seems obvious that the most popular term to refer to this myth is as "creation narrative" or "creation story. This isn't the case in popular usage for other, dead creation myths, because there's no politically correct urge to do so in our modern society. Even reliable/secular sources avoid the "myth" term for what I would imagine are PC reasons. So even though the terminology may appear more biased and euphemistic compared to other creation myth article titles, we are following policy here by keeping the current title. — CIS (talk | stalk) 11:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We're also not supposed to be using google results to determine things like this for us in the first place. This Christian says myth is the proper and scholarly term, even for those who believe it is literal history.Farsight001 (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly backwards. We look to common usage WP:UCN and to determine common usage in academia we use tools like google scholar. What we are not supposed to use are our own opinions and feelings about these things.Griswaldo (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's not. I'll have to dig a bit to find the policy, but I remember very clearly reading one that states that we are not to be using google searches like this for any real decisions in the article.Farsight001 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's this. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Please take note that this is not a "Google search" but a "Google Scholar search". Google scholar is far from perfect but it provides a rough idea of how common a certain term is in scholarly publications. Its always good to actually take a look at the results as well, but I've done that, and like I said we're talking about respectable peer reviewed journals and books put out by academic publishers. How would you suggest measuring common usage? It clearly has nothing to do with what you "believe as a Christian", as you stated.Griswaldo (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GOOGLE specifically mentions Google Scholar and Google Books as being more reliable than Web searches and encourages their use. "Multiple hits on an exact phrase in Google Book Search provide convincing evidence for the real use of the phrase or concept." --agr (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is bias, no other creation myth is called a narative, why therfore should the christian one be so described?Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What other creation myth are you comparing this one to, and why on earth are you referring to the creation myth of the Hebrew bible as simply "Christian"? Please see agrs last comment in the section below this one.Griswaldo (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(for the record, and since I was aked to give a "statement" -- in light of this discussion, the page has been tagged with {{POV-title}}. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- This one Creation myth in general, Thge same page has links to a number of pages that describe the religion narativbes of various religions as myths. No secificaly creation myths, but that just meanss that hte myth of the Judeo-Christan creation myth has recvied more attnetion on wikpedia. If your bleives are not mtyhs then niether are the Hoppi indians. Also we have this Chinese creation mythl.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please use normal sized fonts so we can read your statement. I've questioned the tagging below.Griswaldo (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if there is a difference here between "scholarship" and "reliable source." Griswaldo says "Once again the scholarship, which is disspasionate and non-religious, favors "creation story" ten times as much as "creation myth" when discussing this content." If this is true of reliable sources, then he's right. If it's merely true of "scholars" (however ""dispassionate"" or non-religious they may be) then it might not be. I doubt Google scholar is a good tool for determining which sources are actually reliable. However, looking at the sources which are fit for use on this article might be a better idea. If the sources used for this article are reliable, and they use "creation narrative" most, then that is the title we should use. BE——Critical__Talk 01:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the Creation myth article. "Creation narrative" redirects there. It seems to be a longstanding convention on Wikipedia to call these stories "myths," but they are also sometimes called narratives. Very often they are called "myths" in living traditions as well, just make a search of "myth" in the article. The field of Comparative mythology is called what it is, leading me to believe that "mythology" is the scholarly term for these narratives. The Religion and mythology article makes clear that the term mythology is used for living traditions, even though that has been changed to "narrative" at some points in the Mythology article. Using the term "narrative" seems to be politically correct, but not scholarly, from this brief perusal I've done. BE——Critical__Talk 17:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This bears quoting here:
"The relationship between religion and myth depends on what definition of "myth" one uses. By Robert Graves's definition, a religion's traditional stories are "myths" if and only if one does not belong to the religion in question. By Segal's definition, all religious stories are myths—but simply because nearly all stories are myths. By the folklorists' definition, all myths are religious (or "sacred") stories, but not all religious stories are myths: religious stories that involve the creation of the world (e.g., the stories in Genesis) are myths; however, religious stories that don't explain how things came to be in their present form (e.g., hagiographies of famous saints) are not myths.
It should be noted that most definitions of "myth" limit myths to stories.[9] Thus, non-narrative elements of religion, such as ritual, are not myths." [15] BE——Critical__Talk 17:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
My questions above haven't been answered, although I hope they are well founded. I'm basically asking whether the WP:RS for this article preponderantly say "creation myth," "creation narrative," or use some other term. I believe that under Wikipedia rules we are obligated to base our decision on the article title on this information, or similarly reliable and agreed-upon data, not the votes of editors or the popularity of the term in popular culture or Google scholar results. I also believe (see my posts above) that the current data favors "myth." That seems to be the scholarly term for creation stories. So I would like to jump start this discussion and see what foundation there is for objections to renaming the article to "Genesis creation myth." BE——Critical__Talk 20:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- B-critical this is clearly not how it works. You do not get to demand evidence when you have produced none for your own position and simply reject out of hand the evidence produced for the position you do not agree with asking for other evidence instead. Google scholar simply compiles references that use one term or another. The fact that "creation story" and variants thereof come up 10 times as much as "creation myth" and variants there of in reference to the content of this entry is significant. If, it can be shown that these hits are deceptive then we can discount them but you have to do that work and clearly you are unwilling to do so. Did you look at the actual hits? Go back to the links provided above and click through and tell me which of the first 20 (or 50, or 100) references are not reliable sources. You'll find that they mostly are from reliable sources like the journals Sociology of Religion and Journal of the History of Ideas. You cannot claim that evidence has not been provided that this is the most used term in reliable sources because it has. Do the work and stop asking for other people to do it for you. Also, keep your eye on the ball because this article is not Creation myth.Griswaldo (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if this is true, then you have proved your point. However, others seem to disagree. And no, I don't have to be a scholar on this subject to add something to the conversation. I only have to ask the right questions. You've given a good answer, and if what you say is correct -and I rely on other editors who know the subject area to check that- then you're right. To recap, if the sources you have are reliable, just as reliable as the ones used in the article, and if they use the terms as you say, then there is no reason to rename the article. I certainly was taught at university to call the Genesis account a myth, but perhaps that is not the most common scholarly term. BE——Critical__Talk 21:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In a class on comparative mythology it would most certainly be called a myth. In any number of other courses from sociology to history this would most likely not be called a myth. The particular academic context matters quite a bit. This creation story comes up in a variety of scholarly contexts and many of them have no interest in how it compares to other such stories cross-culturally or historically. Myth as a category is not particularly meaningful in these contexts. Now, these same contexts do not often, if ever, engage other Mesopotamian creation stories. Those stories are much more squarely fixed to academic contexts that do find the category of "myth" useful. The discrepancy is due to drastically different histories of cultural practice. But that doesn't even matter to us. What matters is that this story is not referred to as "the genesis creation myth" in most of the reliable sources that discuss it. Do these sources agree, for the most part, that in the ancient context in which it was crafted calling it a myth makes sense. Absolutely, but that context is only one of many historical contexts for this story since its part of a very rich living tradition. If you cannot wrap your head around this then please, as you suggest, do leave this to people who have some knowledge of the relevant fields.Griswaldo (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be much obliged if you moderated your tone. I did not come here as your enemy, and I am quite happy to give your position my support if it is correct. I came here responding to concerns on WP:NPOV/N. If you really want to make editors your enemies, and thus sabotage your ability to be heard, then rock on. Otherwise, try and find allies where you can. I came here not to push a particular point, though I did have a initial opinion, but to formulate a method for decision making based on Wikipedia convention. BE——Critical__Talk 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "part of a very rich living tradition" -- I see. So everybody else is dead. If you keep insulting other traditions by inferring that they are "not rich" and "not living", you can easily lose all credibility here. But I guess this whole discourse proves the point. Some people resist the term "myth" because they insist on making Genesis look better than everybody else's stories, e.g. rich and living. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unbelievable. Where did I say that "everybody else is dead"? I would never deny, and have never denied that there are not many "rich living traditions" -- take your pick of any living religion. Thanks for the straw man of me as a religious bigot. There are of course some religions that were dead for hundreds of years and are now being "reconstructed" by contemporary practitioners (and I suppose this includes ancient Mesopotamian religions). These religions may be "alive" now, if you accept that they are linked to the older traditions they are claiming to revitalize, but they've missed a good thousand plus years of historical development and that's simply a fact. As you point out, some people resist the term myth, even in contexts where it is appropriately applied to Genesis, because they are driven by a self-interested religious polemic. I don't deny this at all and have been consistently arguing against these people on this very talk page. See for instance the religiously motivated definition of myth as always "polytheistic" to de facto exclude all the stories from the Bible. Such arguments are polemical and do not belong here. However there are other academic contexts in which "myth" is a meaningless or misleading category to apply to this story, because these contexts are not interested in the literary structure of Genesis and/or how it compares to other similar stories. In sociological scholarship on Christians who believe in a literal Genesis creation "creation myth" has no meaningful place in the discussion. In historical scholarship of intellectual history that touches, for instance, on theological developements vis-a-vis the Genesis narrative, "creation myth" once again is not a category worth invoking. All of this is reflected in sources from these fields, and all of this is what contributes to the 10:1 ratio of usage between creation story and creation myth. Please refrain from, in so many words, calling me a religious bigot. Please also understand that I'm not religious, and if someone had a gun to my head and I had to chose my favorite tradition it would probably not be one of the big three monotheisms. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right about the tone, but please understand that there's a context here which you may not be aware of. The title of this article was initially Creation according to Genesis. The article was quickly renamed to Genesis creation myth with a "consensus" of 3-4 editors and it was done before anyone noticed. This resulted in a months-long and extremely acrimonious fight over the title. The compromise title was Genesis creation narrative, because narrative, or story, can be seen as supportive or not to either side of the controversy. There are many, many reliable sources which do not use the term myth, and the common user of Wikipedia is more likely to look under creation story or creation narrative. Wikipedia naming policy (WP:UCN) says that we don't use technically correct titles for articles when the common usage differs.
- As part of the compromise, the first two chapters of Genesis are still called a "myth" in the article's lede, because that is a technical term in use, even if not everyone uses it. Griswaldo was here during the melee, and having someone suggest going back to Genesis creation myth set him off. It almost set me off as well. Despite WP:AGF, and I am assuming good faith on your part, because I see no evidence to the contrary, it's a touchy issue. The whole fight took place earlier this year, so the subject is fresh. I hope that explains why he kind of lost it, and I hope that he will chill now, because it's clear that you weren't around during it and didn't realize what the context was. But can we please let this go? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Lisa for the history rundown. I think if others will let it drop I am willing to do so. I do think that the method I proposed, if followed, would have lead to a more stable decision on the article title, based on sources rather than editor compromises. Compromises are always unstable. Sound arguments on sources are much more stable, and can be argued in mediation much more easily. So yes, if no one else continues to object I'll let it drop, but just so you won't have to go through it again, you might want to formulate this argument with full statistics (I mean the argument that "narrative" is used more by WP:RS). Then next time you can trot it out. BE——Critical__Talk 23:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that was done before. It's somewhere in the volumes of archived discussions here. I'd hate to have to rummage through that, but you may be right that it'd be useful. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure it would be, it could have prevented all this. If you want my advice, dig it up and copy it to a userpage (; BE——Critical__Talk 02:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current title is not based on editor compromise its based on common usage in reliable sources. I'm getting seriously sick of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Many good faith attempts have been made to explain this to you and others over the past couple of days. There are 10 times as many sources using "genesis creation story" than there are "genesis creation myth". I've told you they are reliable sources and asked that if you do not believe me please go through them and show me which ones are unreliable. If you do not then there is no discussion to be had here.Griswaldo (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what you claim, since you say that the sources in the Google Scholar search are RS. Such statistics haven't been done, so far as I know, on the actual sources for this article. And you are right, that if people more expert on the subject than I am do not wish to pursue this, then there is no discussion to be had. I came here to pose that question, you have answered it for your part. As long as no one contradicts you, then you've got it (: BE——Critical__Talk 16:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My questions above haven't been answered, although I hope they are well founded. I'm basically asking whether the WP:RS for this article preponderantly say "creation myth," "creation narrative," or use some other term. I believe that under Wikipedia rules we are obligated to base our decision on the article title on this information, or similarly reliable and agreed-upon data, not the votes of editors or the popularity of the term in popular culture or Google scholar results. I also believe (see my posts above) that the current data favors "myth." That seems to be the scholarly term for creation stories. So I would like to jump start this discussion and see what foundation there is for objections to renaming the article to "Genesis creation myth." BE——Critical__Talk 20:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- B-critical this is clearly not how it works. You do not get to demand evidence when you have produced none for your own position and simply reject out of hand the evidence produced for the position you do not agree with asking for other evidence instead. Google scholar simply compiles references that use one term or another. The fact that "creation story" and variants thereof come up 10 times as much as "creation myth" and variants there of in reference to the content of this entry is significant. If, it can be shown that these hits are deceptive then we can discount them but you have to do that work and clearly you are unwilling to do so. Did you look at the actual hits? Go back to the links provided above and click through and tell me which of the first 20 (or 50, or 100) references are not reliable sources. You'll find that they mostly are from reliable sources like the journals Sociology of Religion and Journal of the History of Ideas. You cannot claim that evidence has not been provided that this is the most used term in reliable sources because it has. Do the work and stop asking for other people to do it for you. Also, keep your eye on the ball because this article is not Creation myth.Griswaldo (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if this is true, then you have proved your point. However, others seem to disagree. And no, I don't have to be a scholar on this subject to add something to the conversation. I only have to ask the right questions. You've given a good answer, and if what you say is correct -and I rely on other editors who know the subject area to check that- then you're right. To recap, if the sources you have are reliable, just as reliable as the ones used in the article, and if they use the terms as you say, then there is no reason to rename the article. I certainly was taught at university to call the Genesis account a myth, but perhaps that is not the most common scholarly term. BE——Critical__Talk 21:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In a class on comparative mythology it would most certainly be called a myth. In any number of other courses from sociology to history this would most likely not be called a myth. The particular academic context matters quite a bit. This creation story comes up in a variety of scholarly contexts and many of them have no interest in how it compares to other such stories cross-culturally or historically. Myth as a category is not particularly meaningful in these contexts. Now, these same contexts do not often, if ever, engage other Mesopotamian creation stories. Those stories are much more squarely fixed to academic contexts that do find the category of "myth" useful. The discrepancy is due to drastically different histories of cultural practice. But that doesn't even matter to us. What matters is that this story is not referred to as "the genesis creation myth" in most of the reliable sources that discuss it. Do these sources agree, for the most part, that in the ancient context in which it was crafted calling it a myth makes sense. Absolutely, but that context is only one of many historical contexts for this story since its part of a very rich living tradition. If you cannot wrap your head around this then please, as you suggest, do leave this to people who have some knowledge of the relevant fields.Griswaldo (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be much obliged if you moderated your tone. I did not come here as your enemy, and I am quite happy to give your position my support if it is correct. I came here responding to concerns on WP:NPOV/N. If you really want to make editors your enemies, and thus sabotage your ability to be heard, then rock on. Otherwise, try and find allies where you can. I came here not to push a particular point, though I did have a initial opinion, but to formulate a method for decision making based on Wikipedia convention. BE——Critical__Talk 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "part of a very rich living tradition" -- I see. So everybody else is dead. If you keep insulting other traditions by inferring that they are "not rich" and "not living", you can easily lose all credibility here. But I guess this whole discourse proves the point. Some people resist the term "myth" because they insist on making Genesis look better than everybody else's stories, e.g. rich and living. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unbelievable. Where did I say that "everybody else is dead"? I would never deny, and have never denied that there are not many "rich living traditions" -- take your pick of any living religion. Thanks for the straw man of me as a religious bigot. There are of course some religions that were dead for hundreds of years and are now being "reconstructed" by contemporary practitioners (and I suppose this includes ancient Mesopotamian religions). These religions may be "alive" now, if you accept that they are linked to the older traditions they are claiming to revitalize, but they've missed a good thousand plus years of historical development and that's simply a fact. As you point out, some people resist the term myth, even in contexts where it is appropriately applied to Genesis, because they are driven by a self-interested religious polemic. I don't deny this at all and have been consistently arguing against these people on this very talk page. See for instance the religiously motivated definition of myth as always "polytheistic" to de facto exclude all the stories from the Bible. Such arguments are polemical and do not belong here. However there are other academic contexts in which "myth" is a meaningless or misleading category to apply to this story, because these contexts are not interested in the literary structure of Genesis and/or how it compares to other similar stories. In sociological scholarship on Christians who believe in a literal Genesis creation "creation myth" has no meaningful place in the discussion. In historical scholarship of intellectual history that touches, for instance, on theological developements vis-a-vis the Genesis narrative, "creation myth" once again is not a category worth invoking. All of this is reflected in sources from these fields, and all of this is what contributes to the 10:1 ratio of usage between creation story and creation myth. Please refrain from, in so many words, calling me a religious bigot. Please also understand that I'm not religious, and if someone had a gun to my head and I had to chose my favorite tradition it would probably not be one of the big three monotheisms. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right about the tone, but please understand that there's a context here which you may not be aware of. The title of this article was initially Creation according to Genesis. The article was quickly renamed to Genesis creation myth with a "consensus" of 3-4 editors and it was done before anyone noticed. This resulted in a months-long and extremely acrimonious fight over the title. The compromise title was Genesis creation narrative, because narrative, or story, can be seen as supportive or not to either side of the controversy. There are many, many reliable sources which do not use the term myth, and the common user of Wikipedia is more likely to look under creation story or creation narrative. Wikipedia naming policy (WP:UCN) says that we don't use technically correct titles for articles when the common usage differs.
- As part of the compromise, the first two chapters of Genesis are still called a "myth" in the article's lede, because that is a technical term in use, even if not everyone uses it. Griswaldo was here during the melee, and having someone suggest going back to Genesis creation myth set him off. It almost set me off as well. Despite WP:AGF, and I am assuming good faith on your part, because I see no evidence to the contrary, it's a touchy issue. The whole fight took place earlier this year, so the subject is fresh. I hope that explains why he kind of lost it, and I hope that he will chill now, because it's clear that you weren't around during it and didn't realize what the context was. But can we please let this go? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Lisa for the history rundown. I think if others will let it drop I am willing to do so. I do think that the method I proposed, if followed, would have lead to a more stable decision on the article title, based on sources rather than editor compromises. Compromises are always unstable. Sound arguments on sources are much more stable, and can be argued in mediation much more easily. So yes, if no one else continues to object I'll let it drop, but just so you won't have to go through it again, you might want to formulate this argument with full statistics (I mean the argument that "narrative" is used more by WP:RS). Then next time you can trot it out. BE——Critical__Talk 23:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that was done before. It's somewhere in the volumes of archived discussions here. I'd hate to have to rummage through that, but you may be right that it'd be useful. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure it would be, it could have prevented all this. If you want my advice, dig it up and copy it to a userpage (; BE——Critical__Talk 02:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current title is not based on editor compromise its based on common usage in reliable sources. I'm getting seriously sick of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Many good faith attempts have been made to explain this to you and others over the past couple of days. There are 10 times as many sources using "genesis creation story" than there are "genesis creation myth". I've told you they are reliable sources and asked that if you do not believe me please go through them and show me which ones are unreliable. If you do not then there is no discussion to be had here.Griswaldo (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what you claim, since you say that the sources in the Google Scholar search are RS. Such statistics haven't been done, so far as I know, on the actual sources for this article. And you are right, that if people more expert on the subject than I am do not wish to pursue this, then there is no discussion to be had. I came here to pose that question, you have answered it for your part. As long as no one contradicts you, then you've got it (: BE——Critical__Talk 16:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to clear up the NPOV argument against the current title because it seems contradictory on its face. Two arguments are made by the same crowd and they are as follows
- "Myth" is a standard academic term that does not bare the popular meaning of "false" and therefore is not a violation of NPOV when it is used in reference to a "sacred story". Yet ...
- This article title is a violation of NPOV because other belief systems have stories that are labelled myth when this one is not.
How could number 2 be even remotely possible as long as there is nothing negative about the term myth? This is a complete contradiction. Either there is something inferior about "myth" or there is no neutrality issue between different Wikipedia articles because the use or non-use of the term.Griswaldo (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer to that question is that, while calling other creation stories "myths" is not a violation of NPOV because there is nothing negative about the term myth in scholarly circles, calling this article something else is a violation of NPOV because it singles it out for special treatment relative to popular culture. Relative to the popular culture concept that "myth" means "less true," this article is singled out. It is also less than scholarly, since myth is the academic term. Thus, the violation of NPOV is in singling out this article to seem more "true" relative to other creation myths in the eyes of the non-academic world (by not calling it myth). BE——Critical__Talk 21:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Genesis creation myth", is not the academic term and it wont be otherwise just because you constantly repeat yourself. I'm sorry but this is, once again, a prima facia contradiction. You cannot claim academic usage as it suits you and popular usage as it suits you as well. You cannot have it both ways. If you are making an argument based on neutrality you have to start from either premise or the other: 1) Myth has a negative connotation or 2) "myth" does not have a negative connotation. You cannot claim that it does not and then base an argument on the idea that it does. Your above response is completely nonsensical. Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not "myth" is the academic term in the WP:RS, I leave to other editors for confirmation or denial.
- I in fact do claim both: myth does and does not have a negative connotation, depending on whether you are taking the perspective of scholarly or popular culture. For the purposes of Wikipedia, if "myth" is the scholarly term, it does not matter if it has negative connotations in popular culture. And if "myth" is the academic term, renaming this article to "narrative" to avoid popular negative connotations is against NPOV. These arguments are well established, but I do see some merit in clearly restating them here. BE——Critical__Talk 22:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... actually, for the purposes of Wikipedia, it does matter if it has negative connotations. It matters if it's not in common use. Did you take a look at WP:UCN? Wikipedia does strive for clarity, and does not attempt to use technically correct terms when they will so clearly be misunderstood by most readers. Since the creation story in Genesis does not need to be called a myth, even by those who consider it to fall into that category, and since it will be seen as pejorative by most readers, there's no reason to use it, and ample reason not to.
- In terms of comparing this to other articles, there's precedent for breaking from a template when cause exists. For example, recently, someone decided unilaterally to change "Category:Fooian Jews" to "Category:Jews of Fooian descent" based on the same argument you're making. I think there were 24 separate categories that were affected ([16]). The change was overturned, despite the fact that there are categories such as "Category:American actors of Armenian descent" and "Category:American actors of Russian descent". I think it was Ralph Waldo Emerson who said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Wikipedia doesn't need to be obsessive-compulsive when it gets in the way of being a useful tool for the average reader. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I was reading the naming conventions. They say "In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article...Common usage in reliable sources" which was the basis for my whole argument that we should go with whatever the RS of the article used most. It's a matter of RS, not of popularity. If you look at their examples I think they are all what RS would call the subjects. It goes on "Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words...True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental." Myth is not neutral in common usage, but if the RS were to favor it then we would use it. You're talking about WP being useful for readers, but if a reader is reader is redirected from their original search to something more scholarly, that is in itself useful. Anyway, unless anyone else has objections I see no reason to pursue it further. I simply wanted to make this argument for how we decide the thing. BE——Critical__Talk 02:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current title was not chosen because of WP:NPOV -- it was not chosen because of the popular usage of the term myth. It was chosen because of WP:NAME. Per WP:UCN, "Genesis creation story" would be preferable but "narrative" is a synonym of story. Any argument that claims that we ought to determine the title of this page based on the popular usage of the term "myth" is on its face inapplicable. The current use of that rationale isn't just inapplicable but its completely contradictory as I've already stated. If "myth" bares a negative popular usage and we are worried about this, then the argument to name this entry "myth" because there are a handful of others that also use the term is completely against the whole point of WP:NPOV. If you are worried about the negative use of "myth" you ought to be arguing for removing it from all entries, not for adding it to another entry. The WP:NPOV argument is completely and entirely nonsensical.Griswaldo (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What Griswaldo said. Please, people. It is one thing to keep discussing a title issue for months on end, it is quite another to keep discussing it while consistently ignoring the actual rationale for the title and the WP:NAME guidelines. This isn't usenet, and we don't have discussins just for the hell of it. Try to either present an intelligent and coherent case aware of the issues involved or else leave it be. --dab (𒁳) 12:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I should just note here that, putting all misunderstandings such as the above aside, my original request for statistics showing that "narrative" is used most in the WP:RS for this article has not been met with actual statistics. It is claimed, if I recall right, that the sources in the Google Scholar search are RS, and that they use the term more. Lisa said such statistics exist, but they would be hard to find. BE——Critical__Talk 16:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I live to serve:
- Give me a moment and I'll add current numbers. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lisa that's not what he's looking for. These numbers were already produced by me above. Be critical claims that numbers from google scholar are useless and demands some other form of "data".Griswaldo (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Books:
- 230 Genesis creation myth
- 254 Creation myth in Genesis
- 334 Genesis creation narrative
- 409 Creation according to Genesis
- 453 Creation story in Genesis
- 458 Creation narrative in Genesis
- 474 Biblical creation
- 479 Genesis creation account
- 497 Genesis creation story
- 497 Creation account in Genesis
- Google Scholar:
- 87 Genesis creation myth
- 98 Creation myth in Genesis
- 130 Genesis creation narrative
- 137 Creation according to Genesis
- 198 Creation narrative in Genesis
- 405 Genesis creation account
- 508 Genesis creation story
- 695 Creation account in Genesis
- 1,080 Creation story in Genesis
- 2,950 Biblical creation
- So if we're going by these statistics, "Genesis creation myth" comes up as the least common in both Google Books and Google Scholar. The words "account" and "story" are the most common modifiers, other than "Biblical", but "Biblical creation" would create a scope much wider than merely the first two chapters of Genesis.
- Genesis creation narrative, admittedly, is in the middle of the pack. But like I said, it was a compromise. I don't personally have a problem with "story", but I know there are those who consider it to imply that it's "just a story". I don't personally have a problem with "account", but I know that there are those who consider it to imply that it's an account of something that actually happened. Narrative avoids both of those problems, because no one denies that it's a narrative.
- I don't know what kind of stats he wants if these are indicative enough for him. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google searches are like... an easy button. They're imprecise in that Google indexes darn near everything, even Google Scholar isn't very discerning of what kind of quality it indexes. We have quite a few references used on this page, what do they say? How many of them use myth or some other word? Do we even need a polarizing word like "story" "myth" "narrative" in the title, why not neutral like "Creation according to Genesis" or some other neutral title. My whole concern here was neutrality with the other myths, and the word narrative is not very neutral with how we title other myths in this category. Either they're blatantly labeled a myth or they're given a neutral title without a descriptive word. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, Lisa and Griswaldo are right unless the sources which are actually RS for Wikipedia use something other than the Google searches. I don't know enough to make that determination. BE——Critical__Talk 17:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with Raeky about Google searched, even Google scholar includes some of the most unreliable sources I've ever seen on some subjects. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doug it takes no time to actually go to Google scholar and examine the first few hits to see where they are coming from. This is how we are meant to use Google Scholar in these types of discussions in the first place. I have looked, and the sources appear very legitimate in this case. Google scholar needs to be used with caution, but what is the alternative tool for figuring out common use in scholarship?Griswaldo (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's what I'm wondering about. I think the determination needs to be based on sources considered reliable for this article. BE——Critical__Talk 18:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it would settle the debate, let's everyone start working through the list to find what these sources used call the story and get on with life. (I'm betting editors will continue to find a reason to change it to something else, but why not do it anyway? The arguments over google hits are getting stale.) Professor marginalia (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been demonstrated over and over that there are a number of different terms used by large numbers of reliable sources. We aren't going to count noses here, because then we're going to start fighting about what counts as a reliable source, and it's going to be like lawyers trying to keep out jurors they think will be prejudicial to their case.
Fact is, narrative and story and myth and account all have pluses and minuses for different people. The most egregious, in my opinion, is myth, because it clearly has a common connotation of being fictional. I could just barely understand why anyone would consider "account" to be prejudicial, but to claim that "narrative" implies that it's true is pushing the good faith assumption close to a breaking point. Works of fiction contain narratives. There's absolutely nothing, anywhere, that even suggests that a narrative is a true account of anything.
If you want to change it to Creation in the Book of Genesis, go ahead and propose it. Creation in Genesis was one of the suggestions that'd been made during the last round of this ridiculous fight, but feel free. Genesis creation narrative is 100% neutral, but then, so is Creation in the Book of Genesis, and so is Creation in Genesis. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) The statement "The most egregious, in my opinion, is myth" is an illustration of bias here, This is clearly a mythology, it's in the category creation myth, it uses the word myth heavily. It's unquestionable that in the academic community it's treated as a mythology. Your opinion in changing it to "Genesis Creation Mythology" ? — raeky (talk | edits) 18:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lisa, if it's reliable enough that no one objected to having it in the article as a source for fact statements on the general understanding of the subject, I think it would count. And personally I'm not concerned with neutral, I'm concerned with WP naming conventions, which are about RS, not neutrality. BE——Critical__Talk 18:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Raeky it is not "treated as a mythology" throughout "the academic community". It is treated as mythology in academic contexts within which it makes sense to treat it as mythology. The story maybe contains two myths, but in some contexts it makes absolutely no sense to discuss them as myths. I'm sick and tired of repeating myself on this. The academic contexts which involve this story are much broader than comparative mythology. Please try to understand this. We might be able to discount Christian theology itself but we cannot discount secular historical and social scientific scholarship about Christians (and Jews) and their belief systems. The latter forms of scholarship rarely have use for the category "myth" because it does not help explain why and how these religious practitioners are engaging the Genesis story. None of these scholars are going to deny that this narrative contains two myths yet that does not mean that they will call it the "Genesis creation myth". Instead they opt for a more general moniker like "Genesis creation story" -- remember that all myths are stories after all. In doing so there is no denial of "myth" (that's only done by religious polemicists). Our current entry is exactly in line with this reality. We do not use the term creation myth in the title but we make no bones about discussing the ancient story as a myth.Griswaldo (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only way this would not be taught as a myth is if your teaching it from a faith based point of view where you assume it's true or based on truths. That is NOT a neutral point of view. Any respectable university is going to teach this as MYTH along the same lines as all the other myths in this category. There is no reliable sources that will backup the assertion that this is true and not fairy tail, so it's treated as a myth academically. Show me where it's not? — raeky (talk | edits) 19:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Academically a "myth" is not something that is "untrue and a fairy tale". You seem to think that scholars and teachers take a position about the truth value of the story when they research or teach about it. Why would they? Myths are not interesting to scholars and teachers because they are "untrue" but because of how they are structured, how they may function psychologically and sociologically, how they compare to other similar stories cross-culturally, etc. etc. Once again, I think we all understand rather clearly that within a belief system this story might be taught as "true" but within scholarship the truth value is irrelevant, and that's what you seem to fail to understand almost entirely. What makes it of interest to invoke the "myth" category in one academic setting and not another has nothing to do with truth value, and everything to do what "myth" as a category implies about the story and those who are engaging it. Once again, in some contexts that category is informative and in others it is not.Griswaldo (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no. Key aspect of a myth is a supernatural element, and academically I doubt you'll find any reputable universities supporting supernaturalism as anything but false. Belief in a mythology or supernaturalism is accompanied by faith, which is outside the realm of academics. The reason the word myth is used heavily throughout this article is because it is, a myth. There is a huge biased push to keep that out of the title, I suspect one reason is how it's linked on other articles, really doesn't look good to link to the creation myth on a Christian article, but to the creation narrative, thats acceptable right, even though it's a myth? I don't see you disagreeing that this is a myth and part of a mythology? So why would labeling it as such in the article title be a bad thing? — raeky (talk | edits) 19:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT -- for the last time I support the current tile (but would prefer "Genesis creation story") because of WP:UCN. Raeky there are clearly religious editors here who do not want "creation myth" in the title for reasons of their own faith, but our determination should have nothing to do with this, and indeed it doesn't. These same editors want "myth" removed from the entry content, and has that happened? NO it hasn't. Why not do you think? Have you stopped to think for one second how someone could both support the current title while supporting the use of "myth" in the entry? The appropriate application of policy in both instances is why.Griswaldo (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) @Lisa, if some editors claim that the terminology used by the sources used are more reliable than google hit counts, I think it's better to go see what they say than simply guess about it. But I'm guessing that with so many editors so extremely sensitive even about straightforward words like "story", "account" and "narrative", that whatever the results are will be again challenged as "implying" something and be challenged as not NPOV. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be right, but looking at the sources is a really good start to stability. this one supports "myth", I think. It's the first one I tried. BE——Critical__Talk 20:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does that one support "myth"? It appears to support "account".Griswaldo (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that has more hits, thx BE——Critical__Talk 21:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. "Creation myth", "creation myths", "Genesis myth", "Genesis myths" - "No results found". "Creation account", "creation accounts", "Genesis account", or "Genesis accounts" - on 21 pages. As I have time, I'll be making notes of the sources I can check out on my user subpage. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We might want to agree on a standard series of search terms to use to standardize the searches? BE——Critical__Talk 23:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming we're going for a "common name" here, we want to focus on what it is called apart from how it is categorized, defined, or described. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right... if I understand you correctly. BE——Critical__Talk 23:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my first efforts here I've tried some different tricks to determine what the authors might be calling it when it's first introduced, but it isn't always delivering what we're after because some of the texts assume the reader doesn't need to be introduced. So in some cases I've had to search simply "creation" or "genesis" and see what turns up. For obvious reasons, many of these authors' terminologies won't be useful here--for example some simply call it "Genesis 1 and 2". Anybody is welcome to edit my user subpage to help record what these sources say on it. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's all this clarification of what is meant by "myth"? A myth is a myth...it's not literally true, and story, symbolic, allegorical. It strikes me as being pretty obvious what is meant by "myth" in relation to this article. The Eskimo 19:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Scratch that. Apparently no so obvious to some. I will hence-forth read prior discussions before posting embarrasing questions. The Eskimo 19:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a good question, the embarrassment is all the focus on it
 BE——Critical__Talk 02:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think this was good, because it's indicative of how most people reading Wikipedia are going to read the word. Having it in the body of the article, where it can be explained that it's only being used as a technical term, is okay. Having it in the title, where it clearly gives the wrong impression, is not. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been watching this fracas without involving myself, but I think a fresh voice might help, whether you agree with my points or not. I've been sifting through the arguments and drama, and as someone in college myself (going into senior year as a history major, focusing on Asian history), I hear the term myth far more frequently in casual academic conversing. Besides being less verbose and having fewer syllables than the alternatives (which itself is an argument for it, as titles should be as compact as possible), it's also not separating Christianity from other religions here. Unless there's a dicussion to move every single aforementioned article to something like Chinese creation narrative (which isn't even a redirect, don't know what you make of that), the title in and of itself violates WP:UNDUE in relation to our other articles. It's obvious promotion of Christianity, because the old and current arguments for Genesis creation narrative consisted largely of 1. IDONTLIKEIT arguments against myth, and 2. the argument that "It's a religion, so it shouldn't be dismissed as a myth, which has a pejorative meaning in everyday speech", which is far more toxic than 1. If I wanted to test the limits of WP:POINT, I'd go over to Chinese creation myth and propose it be moved like this page, and see what kind of response I got. Probably very few positive repsonses, because relatively few people here on English Wikipedia are attached to the subject matter. As someone who lives in the United States, I can attest to the hysteria that accompanies every instance where Christians are forced to recognize that they, too, are subject to the 1st Amendment, and cannot force themselves on people, just like other religions (a la Pastafarianism). That's not quite what's happening here (I'm most certainly not implying people are "forcing themselves" on anyone here), but the basic argument I'm making is the same- people are attached to this subject, and are arguing for different treatment because someone around them (who would share the same viewpoint) wouldn't understand. In fact, only 1/6 to 1/5 of the world's population practices Christianity, and the world's majority, which isn't attached to it, would use academic terms. I'm not sure why no one's brought this up, but Google Scholars in English, and English language sources in general, would be inherently biased, because most English-speaking countries have a Christian majority, and those that don't (Liberia comes to mind- 40% animist, 40% Christian, and 20% Muslim) tend to have very limited Internet access and less literature. I don't really care what pejorative meaning it might have to someone less literate than myself, that's their problem if they don't understand, and they can use a dictionary if they're confused. And yes, I would be making the exact same type of argument if this article was named something like Genesis creation fallacy, because that's the exact same undue issue- it conflates the Genesis creation myth into something that's undue weight (or lack thereof) in proportion to other articles dealing with creation myths. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC) I promise all future comments will be much shorter, but as someone who just came to this conversation, I had to deal with several days of conversation in one post. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Christianity"? I'm not a Christian. And this business of insisting on a rigidly consistent naming pattern, regardless of common use, is bordering on OCD. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 11:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blade, to echo Lisa's response consider that this creation myth was around for hundreds of years before Jesus every existed. Why do call it Christian? It is very telling when someone does consider this a "Christian" myth because it invokes a particular culture wars discourse ... one that very unfortunately blinds people to the realities of WP:UCN. Your argument is not new, in fact it is repeated over and over again by the same people who apparently continue not to hear the bona fide rationale for the current title -- you very clearly did not mention this rationale yourself in your response. The title is based on WP:NAME and NOT WP:NPOV or aspects of this policy like WP:DUE. WP:NAME is the relevant policy for naming Wikipedia entries, and it suggests we use common names. I've tried explaining, to no avail it seems, some of the reasons why this particular story is most often not referred to as a myth when it is named in scholarship, despite the fact that those who might more readily call it something like "Genesis creation story" would still tell you that the story does indeed contain two myths. There is no contradiction here. A dog breeder will tell you that a beagle is a hound despite the fact that unlike its relatives the redbone coonhound or the foxhound it does not bare the term in its name. Please also consider that only five other entries about specific sets of creation myths have the term in their names. If you can find a better common name for those entries then by all means please change them. For instance Norse creation myth redirects to Völuspá and Babylonian creation myth redirects to Enûma Eliš. I believe you have posted in all good faith but I beseech of you if you are going to enter this debate and claim to have read through the prior discussions that you show some evidence of this in your own arguments. Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Let me start by saying I'm not accusing anyone here of "forcing themselves on anyone". What I meant by that is, as a resident of the United States, I'm used to hearing Christians insisting on demands that their religion be treated better than everyone elses (read the backstory behind the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it's unfortunately not an isolated event). Anyways, what you have with Norse and Babylonian creation myth is a common Old Norse and Babylonian name, and I'd indeed be happy if we could use the common Arimaic or Hebrew name or something like that here. That's not a joke, calling it by its original name in the original languages it used would be a good idea. If we don't go that route, then we have other options. I get what you're saying with WP:NAME; my issue, upon further reflection, is not with keeping everything the same name, or special treatment. It's more that myth is the more historical term, and that's generally what shows up in texts before the late 19th century. 20th century American Christianity/Judaism is very different from what Judeo-Christianity historically was/still is in certain places, and should not be given undue weight. It's tough, because American Christians and Jews are very vocal, but they really represent a (large) minority among even modern Christians and Jews. I understand that myth has taken on a new meaning in recent years, but I can think of innumerable examples of words that have different meanings, but are still used today in their original meanings to describe certain things (a bachelor's degree comes to mind; not the best example, but you know where I'm going). But honestly, the title where it's at isn't horrible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling it מעשה בראשית, while accurate, would share in the problems that myth has. Which is that it isn't useful for the average reader. Wikipedia is supposed to be usable by non-scholars.
- Myth is not the more historical term. And words mean what they mean, not what they meant once upon a time. In the King James version of the Bible, "Thou shalt not kill" meant "do not murder". But words change over time. Both connotively and denotively. You know very well that the word "myth", right now, in July 2010, outside of academia, means "made up story". Check any dictionary you like. Go around to people you know and ask them, context free, how they'd define the word "myth".
- Unfortunately, I think you've displayed a little chip on your shoulder when it comes to Jews and Christians and their beliefs. Which is a shame. You're reaching and reaching to find a way to call the biblical creation story a myth, and I think you're quite aware of the connotation that will carry. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While it's true I do have a strong distaste for both religion and atheism (strong agnosticism doesn't cater to either), I am trying to be pragmatic. I can see this as something where two reasonable people can disagree, and indeed have. I'm trying not to let my personal views, which are quite abrasive, seep into this, although in hindsight writing anything before I had any coffee this morning was probably a bad idea (you have no idea; I'm a zombie in the morning, and I'm still recovering from a Rush concert on the 19th). Now that it's early afternoon, I'm in a better frame of mind. I'm not sure why you'd think narrative doesn't have the same connotations- I remember writing narratives when I was a kid in school, which meant we had to create our own fictional story. If it's a choice between narrative, which (as far as I know) is commonly used as a euphemism for fiction, or myth, which is often used the same way, but has a more standard academic definition for classification purposes, then I personally would go with myth- I think of straight fiction when I hear the word narrative, religious stories when I hear myth. I've always viewed all religions as such, so I've always (even when I was a Catholic) thought of Genesis as a myth. It could just be that I'm weird (which is entirely possible, I've proven that on many fronts),but most of the people I speak to at college seem to think the same way. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Myth is definitely not the historical term for Christians. For centuries, to Christians, "myth" was precisely something other than the stories of the bible. Some religious polemicists still try to define myth in this way today in fact.Griswaldo (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And on Wikipedia, we don't simply let organizations define themselves; that's akin to saying we should definitively say that Fox contains "fair and balanced news" because they say so (I'm one of the only college students in the country who voted for John McCain, mind you), or saying that Jimmy Jones was a true messiah because he led however many hundreds of people to "heaven" in the forests of Guyana. We take what they call themselves into account, but there are other views as well, and they need to be reflected. Just because past Christians didn't refer to their religion as a myth doesn't mean that their definition is correct. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? I never said anything remotely like that. You claimed that the traditional word for this story was "myth" and I pointed out that it wasn't for centuries and also made it clear that this was for polemical reasons. Thankfully, today, we don't consider these polemics legitimate when discussing the genre of these stories. Also, no one refers to a "religion as a myth". Myth and religion are quite separate things. You mean Christians don't refer to stories from their religious cannon as myths? They didn't, but now many do in fact. However, none of that changes the very basic fact that scholars do not call this story "Genesis creation myth". Please understand that WP:NAME is about what something is named and not how it is categorized -- see again Beagle vs. Bloodhound and the category hound. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that you say that, I was taking your comment out of context- I know it sounds like a cop-out, but I just reread it, and now I know what you're saying. Greek mythology refers to the religion, so that's not quite true about religions not being myths. If you want to talk contemporary religions, the word for Shinto stories in Japanese basically translates as lore, which in Japanese is synonymous with myth (I know a little Japanese, and I understand their culture is decidedly different). However, you're correct on other things. In fact, I always did refer to my religion (when I was religious) as a myth, and other Roman Catholics I know still do, but I can also accept that I'm something of an oddball. Again, though, what problem does the word narrative solve; maybe this is just my oddness (and feel free to point it out, I don't get offended), but I view narrative as being just pure fiction, and myth as being a definition for religious stories. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for jumping in The Blade of the Northern Lights. As Griswaldo says "none of that changes the very basic fact that scholars do not call this story "Genesis creation myth"." That is the basic fact here (and I do believe it is fact). Go read WP:NAME, and you'll see it's all about WP:RS. People on Wikipedia are perpetually too willing to get into arguments and not focus on what is really necessary for resolution. We have a clear guide here as to what to do. The Blade of the Northern Lights, if you're really so interested maybe you have the time to go through the RS sources and prove what term is used most. See Prof. M's [17] page here. BE——Critical__Talk 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Be careful who you give snark to, thank you. Anyways, your complaint aside, no one has answered this question- how is narrative any less implicit than myth? Narrative strongly implies fiction; myth implies religious stories. And as an aside, just because a reliable source says something doesn't mean that they 1. don't have a COI and 2. are right. It doesn't give you free license to force a POV title in. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, just a general complaint. Make of it what you will. And next time, could you try to avoid being a dick? I'm new to this particular conversation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's a RS, it doesn't have problems such as you describe for the text it's being used to source. And yes, according to WP:NAME, RS usage does give Wikipedia the right to use a POV title. And while I do not know what you mean by being a dick, as I have been unfailingly polite here, you have my apology if in fact I was a dick unintentionally. BE——Critical__Talk 20:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Ah, sometimes text doesn't reveal people's true intentions. I may have just misread something (I've got PDD-NOS, so it's already very hard for me to read people). But NPOV is a core policy, so if we don't go by that then there has to be very strong consensus. And 68% isn't strong consensus, especially given how many IDONTLIKEIT votes there were (not saying there weren't any reasoned ones, just that there were a lot with major logical flaws). Not only that, reliable sources sometimes misrepresent things; look at the 1986 Hvalur sinkings, which were falsely labeled "terrorism". Don't bring that discussion here, it's just a demonstration that sometimes reliable sources with COIs can, knowingly or otherwise, misrepresent something (in that case, it was very deliberate; here much less so). Don't worry; one thing I've learned is not to hold grudges over the Internet- even though we may disagree here, there'll probably be some other issue where I'm with you 100%The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, yeah, I have some autistic tendencies too. I think what happened is that I was basically disagreeing with you, but I tried to put something welcoming first, kind of to take the sting out of a first contact. But it backfired because it seemed sarcastic. WP:NAME specifically says that a title may be POV: "Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words." That's what I'm going by. I acknowledge that RS may have bias, but I also think that Wikipedia policy specifically says that WP doesn't correct such bias, and may reflect it. My own POV here is to call it myth. I just don't think that's what WP policy says we should do, unless that's what the RS do. BE——Critical__Talk 20:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If "myth" is to be deprecated in favour of "narrative", we should avoid WP:BIAS against Babylonian and gentile narratives, and so on. I modified the article accordingly. Consistency is appropriate. Since this was reverted, rather than edit war I've changed back just the most blatant example of bias in the lead. . dave souza, talk 18:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dave you should have come to the talk page first. Clearly this is a lot of discussion here about related issues. The edit you made was very pointy. I've reverted the lead to how it was for a while ... not sure who changed it recently but it very clearly identified this narrative as one of many Mesopotamian myths.Griswaldo (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's very telling, almost all those changes from myth to narrative (only one not is "gentile creation myth") was in references to other religions myths. Seems strange why those are clearly labeled myths in this article when much of the article wiped away the references to the Genesis myth being a myth. Definitely looks a little like WP:BIAS. It's really getting taxing. It's probably time we take this up a level and either go to unofficial mediation or directly to official mediation for the title and how we treat this article compared to the other creation articles. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on. If you think there is a problem suggest a way to fix it. Dave's edit was very pointy given everything here. Part of the problem was that someone altered the lead. The lead had, and now again does, explicitly state that this is one of many Mesopotamian myths. Does the rest of the entry call it a narrative only? Lets look and discuss, but enough with the politics already.Griswaldo (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So basically you are going to argue against WP:NAME, saying that in spite of what the RS call it, we should call it something different to make it NPOV? Or are you disputing the argument that the RS generally don't call it a myth? Just want to have things clear from the beginning here. BE——Critical__Talk 18:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I'm arguing against basing just what we can find sources to call it, those are afterall mostly Christan and English sources, globally is it called story, narrative or account more then myth? Can you make that assertion that it is or isn't? NPOV and BIAS states we shouldn't and it should be treated on equal ground with other myths. By having a descriptive word in the title, and narrative in this use is descriptive, it's putting BAIS on the article. Also, yes, the word narrative is used throughout the article. And I think this needs to go to mediation at this point since there is obviously nothing being accomplished here. — raekyT 18:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The reliable sources generally do not call it "Genesis creation myth" but the two myths discussed are still categorized in that fashion. Talking about the "creation story" in the text would follow common usage most predominantly, but I agree with Dave that the content of the entry might be a bit skewed in how it presents the matter. I'm starting an actual content discussion below.Griswaldo (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Raeky, please see Prof. M's content analysis of this. You should help the effort, but so far it does indeed seem that story and narrative are more common than myth in the sources we use in the entry ... "account" is the most common.Griswaldo (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So Raeky you are saying that we need to do a GLOBAL analysis of reliable sources, sources which would be RS for this article, and can only make a determination based on that? Or, again, are you saying that even if the RS say "narrative" we should use myth for NPOV relative to other articles/myths? I think answering these questions is in fact accomplishing a great deal. BE——Critical__Talk 18:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think, as I've always stated since my first post on this, is that this article be treated no differently then the other myths. As for WP:BIAS it does state we should try to treat articles more with a global approach. So yes, how it's treated in other languages and globally is important. But regardless, WP:NPOV would mean we would want to be neutral to other creation beliefs, not give any one specific myth more creditability. WP:NAME assumes a vacuum, and doesn't take into account groupings of articles, or related pages like this, so it's not the end-all-be-all policy that we must follow. — raekyT 19:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NAME - "This page describes Wikipedia's policy on choosing article titles." No policy functions in a vacuum but this is the policy we need to follow. Policies are also written with other policies in mind.Griswaldo (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It also states, "Where articles have descriptive titles, choose titles that do not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject." — raekyT 19:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you really mean then that we should change the five other entries with "creation myth" in the title, since narrative is much more non-judgmental than "myth" given its lack of specificity? How could you be passing judgment on a subject that is most often referred to as "story, account and narrative" by choosing one of those more general terms instead of "myth"? Makes no sense.Griswaldo (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, are you saying we should change the other titles to something that sounds non-judgmental? BE——Critical__Talk 19:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think that's what he's trying to say. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a difference between changing this title to myth and the others to something other than myth. BE——Critical__Talk 20:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Once upon a time I took a few university classes on mythology, ancient near eastern religions, and folkloristics. I think wikipedian's are stressing the terminology more than academics are. It was perfectly acceptible then to call the Babylonian creation myth the Enuma Elish or the Genesis creation myth the Genesis creation story or the Biblical creation account. I think there's been a tendency to assume more significance to "myth" in naming convention above and beyond the practice among those actually studying and writing about them. Flipping randomly through a text I have that's all about creation myths, here's a survey of titles used to refer to them individually (they're grouped in chapters by geography first, then sub-headed in various ways, such as by particular ethnic or religious sects). I've linked what I found to be the closest fit to an article here.
- I don't think the mythologists are showing "bias" - they probably just aren't as hung up on uniformity as wikipedians. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're probably right. I made a couple of redirects (; BE——Critical__Talk 20:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a big mistake to think that the Genesis creation article is some odd outlier and that other creation myths are treated more or less uniformly. Not a bit. The fact that many objecting to he use of the term "myth" have personal biases (this goes for many of the "myth" supporters as well, btw) is just distracting. There is a creation myth in Genesis, but there's a creation myth in the Theogony. But we don't refer to Hesiod's as the Theogony creation myth--it feels weird saying it. Few would look it up that way. Editors offer Chinese creation myth, but notice it's an article contrasting one Chinese creation myth (Pangu) with another (from the Tao Te Ching). So what about Greek creation myth? In that case we have to look for them in Pelasgian creation myth, Theogony and Nyx#Other Greek texts. I don't see any uniformity. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, I don't consider my edit to have been pointy, if the article bowdlerises its description of Genesis, it should treat other religious creation beliefs in the same way. The article as it stood very obviously treated one religious belief as "narrative" and other similar beliefs as "myth", suggesting that WP was favouring one religion over others. However, Griswaldo restored phrasing making it clear that "The Genesis creation narrative.... is one of several ancient Mesopotamian creation myths". That looks reasonable to me, and reduces the problem in general. As it happens, I think "myth" implies something deeper and more religious than "narrative", but the common misuse and misunderstanding of "myth" is a factor that can reasonably be taken into consideration. . dave souza, talk 22:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is "creation narrative" religiocentric?[edit]The ongoing contention over "creation myth" and "creation narrative" made me wonder. Is the usage of "creation narrative" associated with religiocentrism or Eurocentrism? As a preliminary check, compare Google searches for the following phrases, arranged by frequency of "narrative" usage:
- "Genesis creation narrative/myth" 163,000/412,000
- "Biblical creation narrative/myth" 50,000/109,000
- "Christian creation narrative/myth" 11,100/114,000
- "Bible creation narrative/myth" 4,340/24,100
- "Shinto creation narrative/myth" 880/1,480
- "Jewish creation narrative/myth" 124/20,700
- "Islamic creation narrative/myth" 6/5,120
- "Hindu creation narrative/myth" 2/50,800
- "Buddhist creation narrative/myth" 1/6,110
- "Muslim creation narrative/myth" 1/2,380
- "Judaic creation narrative/myth" 0/246
- "Taoist creation narrative/myth" 0/78
- "Sikh creation narrative/myth" 0/46
- "Koran creation narrative/myth" 0/5
Besides religions and religious texts, similar usage inconsistencies are found for places.
- "European creation narrative/myth" 247,000/3,480
- "Japanese creation narrative/myth" 10/1,880
- "American creation narrative/myth" 4/113,000
- "Chinese creation narrative/myth" 1/253,000
- "Tibetan creation narrative/myth" 1/132
- "African creation narrative/myth" 0/223,000
These are quick data, and the apparent Christian "narrative" biases could be misleading. Please feel free to correct or counter them with ghits for "X creation narratives/myths/story/stories", Google Scholar, Google Books, etc. Keahapana (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not up to you are I to do our own research and make claims about the biases that exist in academic communities. If there are good reliable sources covering controversies and biases then you should bring them forth, but this is simply your original research and your original conclusions based on that research.Griswaldo (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No conclusions, just questions about whether using "creation narrative" is biased. Here's another. How frequently do authors use "creation narrative" for Christians but "creation myth" for non-Christians? I could be wrong, but thought WP:OR applies to articles, not talk pages. WP:GOOGLE's second example of research topics is, "Usage – Identifying how and where a term is commonly being used, and by whom." I'm surprised you would ignore these Google test results because on 15 July, you wrote, "Google scholar is far from perfect but it provides a rough idea of how common a certain term is in scholarly publications. Its always good to actually take a look at the results as well." Keahapana (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "...culminating in the creation of humanity in the image of God." Actually, it culminates in Day 7, the sanctification of the Sabbath (otherwise why have seven days?) Just thought I'd mention it. As for the vexed question of myth vs. narrative, why not have a look at some leading biblical dictionaries etc? PiCo (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, let's look at Bible dictionaries, with the caveat that their lexicographers are commonly Christian clerics and theologians. Let's also look at more neutral sources like the Encyclopedia of Creation Myths. Keahapana (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's really very interesting research, showing Eurocentrism if I'm correct. Very cool. BE——Critical__Talk 21:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oxford's calls it a creation myth. It clearly advocates a particular kind of reading of it too, though. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If going by ghits alone, "Genesis creation story" is 631,000. "Story" instead of "narrative/myth" tends to generate the most results... WJBscribe (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anything is "religiocentric" it is the term "creation myth", because any discussion of a myth necessarily is a discussion of religion. It's a term from religious studies. There is nothing wrong with being "religiocentric" in an article that is in fact about religion.
Can we now slowly consider going back to working on the actual article? Or do you think we need another year talking about the title? There is a bunch of content attached right under the title, too, you know.
What you are doing here is de facto original research into an alleged Eurocentric bias in scholarly literature (why "Eurocentric" when the text under discussion is actually from the Levant, in Asia, I don't know. "Judeocentric"? But of course in the world of political correctness, denouncing Eurocentric bias makes you a hero, while you have nothing to gain from denouncing "Judeocentrism" other than being labeled an antisemite). Publish a book about it, which we can then cite in our Eurocentrism article. --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible by WRF Browning describes it as the Bible's creation myth but it is labeled simply "Creation". Claus Westerman's section about Genesis creation in Oxford's Guide to the Bible labels it "the narratives of creation" and describes it as two creation stories, one the creation of the world, the second the creation of people, each type having independent traditions in early religions throughout the world. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can agree that "Eurocentric" doesn't accurately describe this apparent English usage bias between "creation narration" and "creation myth". I only mentioned it because "religiocentric" is rare. "Judeocentrism" wouldn't explain why "Jewish creation myth" is more commonly used than "Jewish creation narrative". Perhaps something like "Christian-centric" would be more accurate. "Christian-centrism" since Americocentrism redirects to American exceptionalism and Christocentric has a doctrinal meaning.
Of course, this WP:GOOGLE test is "de facto original research", which is common among talk pages. The present page and archives mention "Google" dozens of times. WP:NOR specifically prohibits original research in articles. Where does it mention talk pages?
If "creation myth" is the object of Religious Studies, does that make "religion" the object of Mythology? Creation myths often predate religions that adapted them. In China, texts recorded the Hundun and Pangu myths for centuries before religions were established.
The questions remain. Do "creation myth/narrative/story" usages reveal prejudices? Which term is more neutral? Applies to a specific religion? Generally applies to religions? Which is the most consistently used within WP and without? Keahapana (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Review WP:SOAPBOX as you are treading close Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I reviewed WP:SOAPBOX but didn't see any reference to questioning usage neutrality. Do you think discussing whether "Genesis creation narrative" denotes a POV is soapboxing? Keahapana (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
?? Of course it is religiocentric. Simply because creation is an entirely religious issue, and only religion(s) deal with creation. ≡ CUSH ≡ 21:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keahapana's point is that Europeans (?) are happy to use the word "myth" for everyone else's creation stories, but insist on calling their own a "narrative." Oddly enough this only applies for the prefix "European" - "European creation narrative" is preferred over "European creation myth," vs Japanese, African etc "creation myth". But if you substitute a religion for a geographical term the bias disappears - "Genesis/Biblical/Christian" all go with "creation myth". PiCo (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. My point is the apparent Christian "creation narrative" inconsistency in English usage, not European languages or religions. I only added geographic examples (like 247,000 "European creation narrative"s vs. 3,480 "European creation myth"s) to provide perspective for the religious ones (like 6,000 "Buddhist creation myth"s vs. one "Buddhist creation narrative"). Here's an example of this bias. "The kernel of truth in the Genesis creation narrative was that God had created the universe and human beings, but its account of how he had done so was an ancient Hebrew myth" (Arthur McCalla, The Creationist Debate: The Encounter Between the Bible and the Historical Mind, 2006:118) Keahapana (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm... well, as I pointed out above (which probably got lost in my wall of text; my fault, I know), the English language would be inherently biased towards using a different term for Christianity versus other religions, especially given that, until very recently, almost all English speakers were Christians. I honestly think a lot of the inconsistencies Keahapana points out are just because the world is becoming a lot more diverse, and the English language is in a rather harsh transition period (it includes other terms as well; just look at the word chairman, it's been mangled into all manner of horrible things). This'll probably resolve itself rather painlessly in a generation or so, when people aren't so hypersensitive; however, we're talking about today, and I'd agree with Keahapana's point that the use of narrative is less consistent than myth. His examples are pretty poignant, and, if nothing else, I think myth has a more standard general definition in religious scholarship than narrative. Now, if someone can show me where narrative has a definition specifically fit for Christianity, I'd be more than willing to look over it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
