(Redirected from
Talk:Genesis creation myth)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Genesis creation narrative article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,
22,
23,
24,
25,
26Auto-archiving period: 30 days
 |
 | This 
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. Restarting a debate that has already been settled constitutes disruptive editing, tendentious editing, and "asking the other parent", unless consensus changes. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Frequently asked questions
Summary of this FAQ
A large number of these questions are relating to the term
creation myth, its meaning and its proper usage in this article.
Q1: What is the definition of
creation myth?
A1:
Creation myth is a widely accepted term that has a precise definition
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] that is "a supernatural story or explanation that describes the beginnings of
humanity,
earth,
life, and the
universe (
cosmogony), often as a deliberate act by one or more deities."
Since there is a consensus among
reliable sources on this definition, it is used here for the purpose of accuracy and
proper word use. Q2: Why do we use creation myth to describe the subject, even if it might offend readers or conflict with their beliefs?
A2: The term creation myth is used for reasons related to scholarship and research, not out of a desire to offend the feelings or beliefs of Wikipedia's readers. While some readers, especially those not familiar with the scholarly terminology referenced when using the term creation myth, might take offense at seeing this subject called a creation myth,
Wikipedia should not be rewritten just so that certain readers will be more comfortable. The goal in writing the article is to be as neutral and dispassionate in describing this subject, but, as with any contentious topic, it is sometimes not possible to accommodate everyone's feelings while writing a neutral, accurate, verifiable, and sourced-based reference work.
Q3: Isn't calling this a creation myth the same thing as calling it a fairy tale, since that is one of the informal definitions for the word myth?
A3: No. The term
creation myth is a coherent
term in its own right that should not be parsed into separate words. The term has a unique meaning different from the informal definitions of the word
myth. Just as an
electoral college is not an institute of higher learning even though it contains the word
college, a creation myth is not necessarily a fairy tale even though it contains the word
myth. Formally defined terms provide unambiguous meaning that aid in the presentation of a more accurate and scholarly encyclopedic article.
Q4: Does this article say or imply that Genesis is not literally true? And if so, is that neutral?
A4: The viewpoint that Genesis is literally true is held by only a tiny minority of sources. Wikipedia's neutrality policy does not say that articles must "give equal validity" to such views (see
WP:GEVAL). In writing this article it also becomes necessary to proceed with some implicit assumptions that many readers are bound to find controversial (see
WP:MNA). Q5: Why does the article name have "narrative" rather than "myth"?
A5: This has been discussed several times, and there has not been sufficient
consensus to change the name of the article.
References |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
|
The editor in me wants to unrevert this revert, but the Wikipedian in me says that I need to pay attention the WP:BRD essay about the Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be bold pages and discuss it here first.
The initial sentence article, with my edit reverted and superscripted links removed, currently reads: "The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity. The bolded phrase , the term Genesis creation narrative there, according to MOS:FIRST, should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is. The article then goes on to describe in some detail two stories, roughly equivalent to the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis.
This article is not the Genesis creation myth.
This article can reasonably be said to be a description of the Genesis creation myth.
Unless there is objection, I intend to unrevert the revert tomorrow. If there is objection, please discuss that here.
Also, please see the related ongoing discussion at Talk:Creation myth#Requested move 4 June 2023, which I mentioned in the edit summary of my reverted edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hello. The scope of the article and the lead sentence have been discussed many times before. Considering that the article has been defined as such for years and due to its controversial nature, this definitely needs to be discussed. You'll need to elaborate why you think this article isn't in fact the Genesis creation myth.
StephenMacky1 (
talk) 20:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think that the Genesis creation myth is a myth (the term myth there intended in its current common usage as described in the
Myth article), and the Genesis creation narrative is a
narrative about the myth. A narrative, according to that wikilinked article,is "any account of a series of related events or experiences,[cites] whether nonfictional (memoir, biography, news report, documentary, travelogue, etc.) or fictional (fairy tale, fable, legend, thriller, novel, etc.)". If you don't like the term narrative there, please suggest a more fitting term. However, this article is not the creation myth itself. It is an account of a series of related events that, in the aggregate, make up what might be called the Genesis creation myth. Some believe those events to be fictional, some believe them to be fact, some believe the account to be
allegorical, some believe it to be a literal description of past events. Regardless of whether or not one or more of those differing beliefs is correct, this article is a an account of that series of related events.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- We add extra words to make believers happy....but it does not change the meaning....just gives more room for interpretation they need.
Moxy-
01:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- We add extra words to make believers happy....but it does not change the meaning....just gives more room for interpretation they need.
Moxy-
- Simple answer:
see Ngrams; long answer: scholars naturally err on the side of caution when it comes to respecting religions in their academic analyses, and here the balance of sources firmly favours 'narrative', so that's NPOV.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 06:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- And more ngrams, but "The Genesis creation narrative [or story, or account] is the creation myth" is still not at all true. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think that the Genesis creation myth is a myth (the term myth there intended in its current common usage as described in the
Myth article), and the Genesis creation narrative is a
narrative about the myth. A narrative, according to that wikilinked article,is "any account of a series of related events or experiences,[cites] whether nonfictional (memoir, biography, news report, documentary, travelogue, etc.) or fictional (fairy tale, fable, legend, thriller, novel, etc.)". If you don't like the term narrative there, please suggest a more fitting term. However, this article is not the creation myth itself. It is an account of a series of related events that, in the aggregate, make up what might be called the Genesis creation myth. Some believe those events to be fictional, some believe them to be fact, some believe the account to be
allegorical, some believe it to be a literal description of past events. Regardless of whether or not one or more of those differing beliefs is correct, this article is a an account of that series of related events.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. There is no advantage to be gained in keeping this discussion open any longer. ( non-admin closure) St Anselm ( talk) 16:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Genesis creation narrative → Genesis creation story – The current title is avoiding WP:COMMONNAME for no apparent reason. It should move to the common name, per Ngrams, and the weighing of scholarly literature, i.e. 2,040 hits for "story", 900 hits for "narrative", and 312 hits for "myth". Aside from being WP:COMMONNAME, "Genesis creation story" is also more WP:CONCISE. Iskandar323 ( talk) 09:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't trust Google scholar. In this case it includes unpublished works a 34 page paper for a seminar at a Creationist Seminary
[1], etc. And that's just the first page. I expect a lot of the Google scholar hits will be Creationist - GS has a lot of fringe material of various kinds. And a search for "Genesis myth" gives 2530 hits
[2], more than any of your searches.
Doug Weller
talk 11:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- And "Genesis story" gives 14,000 hits by the same boiled-down methodology, see
here. As long as the searches are performed in a like-for-like manner, the pattern appears to be highly consistent. In any case, narrative and story are broadly synonymous, so the change is fairly circumstantial, but it is for sure shorter and better aligned with
WP:COMMONNAME.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 11:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- As examples of academic works with the proposed terminology not just in the text, but in the title, see: Noah's Flood: The Genesis Story in Western Thought, Regenesis: Lawrence and a Re-Evaluation of the Genesis Story, The Literary Structur of the Genesis Creation Story, etc. The cause to prefer 'narrative' remains unclear to me. I don't see the impetus. Iskandar323 ( talk) 12:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Plain Google is similar:
180,000 hits for story,
60,000 for narrative,
18,000 for myth.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 11:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @ Iskandar323Interesting but I'm still not happy with searching, eg The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Narrative. came up and it's pretty clearly picking up hits on "story" "story of Genesis" (which of course is similar to but not identical to Genesis story and a bit ambiguous. Doug Weller talk
- More worrying the first book come up twice on the first page and about 5480 times in all.
[3]
Doug Weller
talk 14:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've taken the issue of a book showing up so many times to RSN. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's surely just because it's hosted at multiple scholarly publisher sites, with several reviews, which surely is actually reassuring that it is a high-quality reference source, reviewed and cited many times?
Iskandar323 (
talk) 16:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @
Iskandar323 That’s speculation.
Doug Weller
talk 19:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but so is search result skepticism. There is ostensibly evidence of a clear WP:COMMONNAME, only countered by the notion it might be misrepresentative. Unless someone analyses all of the thousands of results, the facts at face value are still better than the absence of anything empirical at all. Iskandar323 ( talk) 19:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @
Iskandar323 That’s speculation.
Doug Weller
talk 19:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @ Doug Weller: So the Creationist Seminary prefers 'narrative', which is what the proposal aims to dispense with, so that's supportive right? If 'narrative' is less scholarly, and 'story' is more scholarly - that's surely a plus for the latter. Iskandar323 ( talk) 12:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- And "Genesis story" gives 14,000 hits by the same boiled-down methodology, see
here. As long as the searches are performed in a like-for-like manner, the pattern appears to be highly consistent. In any case, narrative and story are broadly synonymous, so the change is fairly circumstantial, but it is for sure shorter and better aligned with
WP:COMMONNAME.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 11:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose as the current name is a neutral compromise that is understood by our readers. We should not use the scholarly name that is misunderstood by most readers. Creationist sources should not be discounted, as that is a NPOV violation. But even if they suggest other names, just keep it the way it is.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 11:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Neutral/NPOV means neutral with respect to the sources, so if the sources overwhelmingly prefer a different title, per WP:COMMONNAME, we should be going with that. WP:COMMONNAME is a lynchpin of the neutral naming policy. Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. “Narrative” is the more scholarly term, and has better representation in the current references. “Story” is not neutral. The nominator’s reference to WP:CONCISE is silly. After so many previous RM failures, a good new RM nomination really should be expected to summarise the prior RMs, otherwise it is just a roll of the dice. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 14:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @ SmokeyJoe: Not neutral in what sense? This is the part no one has explained. More sources use the proposed term, so it's on the face of it more neutral in terms of the balance of sources? What other considerations are there? Where is the evidence that 'narrative' is more scholarly? Do any scholarly sources actually say that the term 'story' is problematic? The last RM was six years ago, which is eons ago in WP:CCC terms. Iskandar323 ( talk) 17:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose – It should be Genesis creation narrative or Genesis creation myth. The word ‘myth’ would be even better since it implies that it does not describe reality. --
Martin Tauchman (
talk) 15:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @
Martin Tauchman: Again, why? Myth is clearly not neutral terminology per the balance of sources, so that ship seems distinctly unlikely to fly. It might be a myth, but that is not the prevalent name for it. That aside, why should it be 'narrative' and not 'story', as the
WP:COMMONNAME?
Iskandar323 (
talk) 17:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Because it is a myth. That is what it is written in the very first sentence of the article. We should not rely on Google results only. We have to use a common sense as well.
WP:COMMON. And the term ‘myth’ is more specific and therefore provides more information to a reader.
Martin Tauchman (
talk) 17:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- You seem to be supposing a clash where there is none, since 'story' is not incompatible with myth. All myths are stories. So the point about the first sentence is unclear, as there is no obvious clash between the supported WP:COMMONNAME title and that. Iskandar323 ( talk) 19:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Because it is a myth. That is what it is written in the very first sentence of the article. We should not rely on Google results only. We have to use a common sense as well.
WP:COMMON. And the term ‘myth’ is more specific and therefore provides more information to a reader.
Martin Tauchman (
talk) 17:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @
Martin Tauchman: Again, why? Myth is clearly not neutral terminology per the balance of sources, so that ship seems distinctly unlikely to fly. It might be a myth, but that is not the prevalent name for it. That aside, why should it be 'narrative' and not 'story', as the
WP:COMMONNAME?
Iskandar323 (
talk) 17:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose and the very first sentence of lede explains why: there are two stories.
Walrasiad (
talk) 15:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Huh? Narrative is also singular, the reason being WP:SINGULAR, which is basic policy. Seems moot. Iskandar323 ( talk) 17:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Near the head of the talk page is a 16-event panel: This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Before re-nominating, review the move requests listed below. To pursue this new request, the proposer should clearly, concisely and unambiguously demonstrate what uniquely new point is being proposed that should overturn the sum of those 16 previous points.
Feline Hymnic (
talk) 19:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @ Feline Hymnic: Only one of those RMs was to the proposed title, the reasons were a muddle and it was withdrawn. Not much not to say. Iskandar323 ( talk) 20:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. It should be kept as narrative because that is what this article really is, a description or narrative of the events in the beginning of Genesis. I personally believe in the Genesis account myself, and as my fellow Christians would say, changing the title of this article to story would correspond that others beliefs are just a fable. Leave Narrative. Same reason why in the Wikipedia article
evolution, it is considered a theory (the second paragraph of the evolution heading reads:
"The theory of evolution by natural selection was conceived independently by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace....
) meaning its neither true or wrong, letting the reader decide its truth. Same should apply to this article. The Capitalist forever ( talk) 19:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)- That's an emotive, not policy-based reason, but also flawed logic. A story can be fictional or non fictional, real or myth. The five-letter term alone does not imply any of the above. Iskandar323 ( talk) 20:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
@
Iskandar323:, talking strictly policy based, I would still say leave narrative. This subject has been brought up so many times and with everyone opposing this, it's not going to change for some time. That's reality. Let me say again:"It should be kept as narrative because that's what this article really is, a description or narrative of the events in the beginning of Genesis."
The Capitalist forever (
talk) 20:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- "events in the beginning of Genesis" seems confusing or circular to me, — Paleo Neonate – 14:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - The previous debates have been between myth and narrative, the two best descriptions, that are also concise. Narrative was a compromise to accomodate those who were offended by myth, even though the latter is the best description: a traditional story of a people. Only "story" is very vague, and can of course be used as part of a text as one of the variations used. As someone pointed out, there also is more than one version or story in the book, that itself was a compilation. — Paleo Neonate – 14:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Make sure the 'G's in 'God' are capitalized. Goober112 ( talk) 22:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- B-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- B-Class Religion articles
- High-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class Christianity articles
- High-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- B-Class Judaism articles
- Mid-importance Judaism articles
- B-Class Bible articles
- Top-importance Bible articles
- WikiProject Bible articles
- B-Class Mythology articles
- Top-importance Mythology articles
- B-Class Creationism articles
- Mid-importance Creationism articles
- WikiProject Creationism articles
- B-Class Ancient Near East articles
- High-importance Ancient Near East articles
- Ancient Near East articles by assessment
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
(Redirected from
Talk:Genesis creation myth)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Genesis creation narrative article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,
22,
23,
24,
25,
26Auto-archiving period: 30 days
|
|
| This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. Restarting a debate that has already been settled constitutes disruptive editing, tendentious editing, and "asking the other parent", unless consensus changes. |
| Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Frequently asked questions
Summary of this FAQ
A large number of these questions are relating to the term
creation myth, its meaning and its proper usage in this article.
Q1: What is the definition of
creation myth?
A1:
Creation myth is a widely accepted term that has a precise definition
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] that is "a supernatural story or explanation that describes the beginnings of
humanity,
earth,
life, and the
universe (
cosmogony), often as a deliberate act by one or more deities."
Since there is a consensus among
reliable sources on this definition, it is used here for the purpose of accuracy and
proper word use. Q2: Why do we use creation myth to describe the subject, even if it might offend readers or conflict with their beliefs?
A2: The term creation myth is used for reasons related to scholarship and research, not out of a desire to offend the feelings or beliefs of Wikipedia's readers. While some readers, especially those not familiar with the scholarly terminology referenced when using the term creation myth, might take offense at seeing this subject called a creation myth,
Wikipedia should not be rewritten just so that certain readers will be more comfortable. The goal in writing the article is to be as neutral and dispassionate in describing this subject, but, as with any contentious topic, it is sometimes not possible to accommodate everyone's feelings while writing a neutral, accurate, verifiable, and sourced-based reference work.
Q3: Isn't calling this a creation myth the same thing as calling it a fairy tale, since that is one of the informal definitions for the word myth?
A3: No. The term
creation myth is a coherent
term in its own right that should not be parsed into separate words. The term has a unique meaning different from the informal definitions of the word
myth. Just as an
electoral college is not an institute of higher learning even though it contains the word
college, a creation myth is not necessarily a fairy tale even though it contains the word
myth. Formally defined terms provide unambiguous meaning that aid in the presentation of a more accurate and scholarly encyclopedic article.
Q4: Does this article say or imply that Genesis is not literally true? And if so, is that neutral?
A4: The viewpoint that Genesis is literally true is held by only a tiny minority of sources. Wikipedia's neutrality policy does not say that articles must "give equal validity" to such views (see
WP:GEVAL). In writing this article it also becomes necessary to proceed with some implicit assumptions that many readers are bound to find controversial (see
WP:MNA). Q5: Why does the article name have "narrative" rather than "myth"?
A5: This has been discussed several times, and there has not been sufficient
consensus to change the name of the article.
References |
|
| This article was nominated for deletion on 15 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
|
| This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
|
The editor in me wants to unrevert this revert, but the Wikipedian in me says that I need to pay attention the WP:BRD essay about the Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be bold pages and discuss it here first.
The initial sentence article, with my edit reverted and superscripted links removed, currently reads: "The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity. The bolded phrase , the term Genesis creation narrative there, according to MOS:FIRST, should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is. The article then goes on to describe in some detail two stories, roughly equivalent to the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis.
This article is not the Genesis creation myth.
This article can reasonably be said to be a description of the Genesis creation myth.
Unless there is objection, I intend to unrevert the revert tomorrow. If there is objection, please discuss that here.
Also, please see the related ongoing discussion at Talk:Creation myth#Requested move 4 June 2023, which I mentioned in the edit summary of my reverted edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hello. The scope of the article and the lead sentence have been discussed many times before. Considering that the article has been defined as such for years and due to its controversial nature, this definitely needs to be discussed. You'll need to elaborate why you think this article isn't in fact the Genesis creation myth.
StephenMacky1 (
talk) 20:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think that the Genesis creation myth is a myth (the term myth there intended in its current common usage as described in the
Myth article), and the Genesis creation narrative is a
narrative about the myth. A narrative, according to that wikilinked article,is "any account of a series of related events or experiences,[cites] whether nonfictional (memoir, biography, news report, documentary, travelogue, etc.) or fictional (fairy tale, fable, legend, thriller, novel, etc.)". If you don't like the term narrative there, please suggest a more fitting term. However, this article is not the creation myth itself. It is an account of a series of related events that, in the aggregate, make up what might be called the Genesis creation myth. Some believe those events to be fictional, some believe them to be fact, some believe the account to be
allegorical, some believe it to be a literal description of past events. Regardless of whether or not one or more of those differing beliefs is correct, this article is a an account of that series of related events.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- We add extra words to make believers happy....but it does not change the meaning....just gives more room for interpretation they need.
Moxy-
01:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- We add extra words to make believers happy....but it does not change the meaning....just gives more room for interpretation they need.
Moxy-
- Simple answer:
see Ngrams; long answer: scholars naturally err on the side of caution when it comes to respecting religions in their academic analyses, and here the balance of sources firmly favours 'narrative', so that's NPOV.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 06:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- And more ngrams, but "The Genesis creation narrative [or story, or account] is the creation myth" is still not at all true. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think that the Genesis creation myth is a myth (the term myth there intended in its current common usage as described in the
Myth article), and the Genesis creation narrative is a
narrative about the myth. A narrative, according to that wikilinked article,is "any account of a series of related events or experiences,[cites] whether nonfictional (memoir, biography, news report, documentary, travelogue, etc.) or fictional (fairy tale, fable, legend, thriller, novel, etc.)". If you don't like the term narrative there, please suggest a more fitting term. However, this article is not the creation myth itself. It is an account of a series of related events that, in the aggregate, make up what might be called the Genesis creation myth. Some believe those events to be fictional, some believe them to be fact, some believe the account to be
allegorical, some believe it to be a literal description of past events. Regardless of whether or not one or more of those differing beliefs is correct, this article is a an account of that series of related events.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. There is no advantage to be gained in keeping this discussion open any longer. ( non-admin closure) St Anselm ( talk) 16:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Genesis creation narrative → Genesis creation story – The current title is avoiding WP:COMMONNAME for no apparent reason. It should move to the common name, per Ngrams, and the weighing of scholarly literature, i.e. 2,040 hits for "story", 900 hits for "narrative", and 312 hits for "myth". Aside from being WP:COMMONNAME, "Genesis creation story" is also more WP:CONCISE. Iskandar323 ( talk) 09:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't trust Google scholar. In this case it includes unpublished works a 34 page paper for a seminar at a Creationist Seminary
[1], etc. And that's just the first page. I expect a lot of the Google scholar hits will be Creationist - GS has a lot of fringe material of various kinds. And a search for "Genesis myth" gives 2530 hits
[2], more than any of your searches.
Doug Weller
talk 11:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- And "Genesis story" gives 14,000 hits by the same boiled-down methodology, see
here. As long as the searches are performed in a like-for-like manner, the pattern appears to be highly consistent. In any case, narrative and story are broadly synonymous, so the change is fairly circumstantial, but it is for sure shorter and better aligned with
WP:COMMONNAME.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 11:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- As examples of academic works with the proposed terminology not just in the text, but in the title, see: Noah's Flood: The Genesis Story in Western Thought, Regenesis: Lawrence and a Re-Evaluation of the Genesis Story, The Literary Structur of the Genesis Creation Story, etc. The cause to prefer 'narrative' remains unclear to me. I don't see the impetus. Iskandar323 ( talk) 12:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Plain Google is similar:
180,000 hits for story,
60,000 for narrative,
18,000 for myth.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 11:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @ Iskandar323Interesting but I'm still not happy with searching, eg The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Narrative. came up and it's pretty clearly picking up hits on "story" "story of Genesis" (which of course is similar to but not identical to Genesis story and a bit ambiguous. Doug Weller talk
- More worrying the first book come up twice on the first page and about 5480 times in all.
[3]
Doug Weller
talk 14:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've taken the issue of a book showing up so many times to RSN. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's surely just because it's hosted at multiple scholarly publisher sites, with several reviews, which surely is actually reassuring that it is a high-quality reference source, reviewed and cited many times?
Iskandar323 (
talk) 16:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @
Iskandar323 That’s speculation.
Doug Weller
talk 19:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but so is search result skepticism. There is ostensibly evidence of a clear WP:COMMONNAME, only countered by the notion it might be misrepresentative. Unless someone analyses all of the thousands of results, the facts at face value are still better than the absence of anything empirical at all. Iskandar323 ( talk) 19:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @
Iskandar323 That’s speculation.
Doug Weller
talk 19:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @ Doug Weller: So the Creationist Seminary prefers 'narrative', which is what the proposal aims to dispense with, so that's supportive right? If 'narrative' is less scholarly, and 'story' is more scholarly - that's surely a plus for the latter. Iskandar323 ( talk) 12:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- And "Genesis story" gives 14,000 hits by the same boiled-down methodology, see
here. As long as the searches are performed in a like-for-like manner, the pattern appears to be highly consistent. In any case, narrative and story are broadly synonymous, so the change is fairly circumstantial, but it is for sure shorter and better aligned with
WP:COMMONNAME.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 11:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose as the current name is a neutral compromise that is understood by our readers. We should not use the scholarly name that is misunderstood by most readers. Creationist sources should not be discounted, as that is a NPOV violation. But even if they suggest other names, just keep it the way it is.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 11:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Neutral/NPOV means neutral with respect to the sources, so if the sources overwhelmingly prefer a different title, per WP:COMMONNAME, we should be going with that. WP:COMMONNAME is a lynchpin of the neutral naming policy. Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. “Narrative” is the more scholarly term, and has better representation in the current references. “Story” is not neutral. The nominator’s reference to WP:CONCISE is silly. After so many previous RM failures, a good new RM nomination really should be expected to summarise the prior RMs, otherwise it is just a roll of the dice. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 14:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @ SmokeyJoe: Not neutral in what sense? This is the part no one has explained. More sources use the proposed term, so it's on the face of it more neutral in terms of the balance of sources? What other considerations are there? Where is the evidence that 'narrative' is more scholarly? Do any scholarly sources actually say that the term 'story' is problematic? The last RM was six years ago, which is eons ago in WP:CCC terms. Iskandar323 ( talk) 17:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose – It should be Genesis creation narrative or Genesis creation myth. The word ‘myth’ would be even better since it implies that it does not describe reality. --
Martin Tauchman (
talk) 15:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @
Martin Tauchman: Again, why? Myth is clearly not neutral terminology per the balance of sources, so that ship seems distinctly unlikely to fly. It might be a myth, but that is not the prevalent name for it. That aside, why should it be 'narrative' and not 'story', as the
WP:COMMONNAME?
Iskandar323 (
talk) 17:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Because it is a myth. That is what it is written in the very first sentence of the article. We should not rely on Google results only. We have to use a common sense as well.
WP:COMMON. And the term ‘myth’ is more specific and therefore provides more information to a reader.
Martin Tauchman (
talk) 17:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- You seem to be supposing a clash where there is none, since 'story' is not incompatible with myth. All myths are stories. So the point about the first sentence is unclear, as there is no obvious clash between the supported WP:COMMONNAME title and that. Iskandar323 ( talk) 19:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Because it is a myth. That is what it is written in the very first sentence of the article. We should not rely on Google results only. We have to use a common sense as well.
WP:COMMON. And the term ‘myth’ is more specific and therefore provides more information to a reader.
Martin Tauchman (
talk) 17:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @
Martin Tauchman: Again, why? Myth is clearly not neutral terminology per the balance of sources, so that ship seems distinctly unlikely to fly. It might be a myth, but that is not the prevalent name for it. That aside, why should it be 'narrative' and not 'story', as the
WP:COMMONNAME?
Iskandar323 (
talk) 17:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose and the very first sentence of lede explains why: there are two stories.
Walrasiad (
talk) 15:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Huh? Narrative is also singular, the reason being WP:SINGULAR, which is basic policy. Seems moot. Iskandar323 ( talk) 17:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Near the head of the talk page is a 16-event panel: This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Before re-nominating, review the move requests listed below. To pursue this new request, the proposer should clearly, concisely and unambiguously demonstrate what uniquely new point is being proposed that should overturn the sum of those 16 previous points.
Feline Hymnic (
talk) 19:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @ Feline Hymnic: Only one of those RMs was to the proposed title, the reasons were a muddle and it was withdrawn. Not much not to say. Iskandar323 ( talk) 20:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. It should be kept as narrative because that is what this article really is, a description or narrative of the events in the beginning of Genesis. I personally believe in the Genesis account myself, and as my fellow Christians would say, changing the title of this article to story would correspond that others beliefs are just a fable. Leave Narrative. Same reason why in the Wikipedia article
evolution, it is considered a theory (the second paragraph of the evolution heading reads:
"The theory of evolution by natural selection was conceived independently by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace....
) meaning its neither true or wrong, letting the reader decide its truth. Same should apply to this article. The Capitalist forever ( talk) 19:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)- That's an emotive, not policy-based reason, but also flawed logic. A story can be fictional or non fictional, real or myth. The five-letter term alone does not imply any of the above. Iskandar323 ( talk) 20:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
@
Iskandar323:, talking strictly policy based, I would still say leave narrative. This subject has been brought up so many times and with everyone opposing this, it's not going to change for some time. That's reality. Let me say again:"It should be kept as narrative because that's what this article really is, a description or narrative of the events in the beginning of Genesis."
The Capitalist forever (
talk) 20:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- "events in the beginning of Genesis" seems confusing or circular to me, — Paleo Neonate – 14:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - The previous debates have been between myth and narrative, the two best descriptions, that are also concise. Narrative was a compromise to accomodate those who were offended by myth, even though the latter is the best description: a traditional story of a people. Only "story" is very vague, and can of course be used as part of a text as one of the variations used. As someone pointed out, there also is more than one version or story in the book, that itself was a compilation. — Paleo Neonate – 14:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Make sure the 'G's in 'God' are capitalized. Goober112 ( talk) 22:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- B-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- B-Class Religion articles
- High-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class Christianity articles
- High-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- B-Class Judaism articles
- Mid-importance Judaism articles
- B-Class Bible articles
- Top-importance Bible articles
- WikiProject Bible articles
- B-Class Mythology articles
- Top-importance Mythology articles
- B-Class Creationism articles
- Mid-importance Creationism articles
- WikiProject Creationism articles
- B-Class Ancient Near East articles
- High-importance Ancient Near East articles
- Ancient Near East articles by assessment
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia articles that use British English