Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:04, 20 December 2011

Template:Pbneutral

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archives

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

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

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

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

Rename article to Genesis creation myth

Disagree. Tacking on the word "myth" is not neutral and is out of place. Even things that are undisputed myths do not have the word "myth" in their title: Icarus, Cyclops, Leprechauns. The only motive for including the word "myth" is persuade the reader that the information is false. Even if it is false, we cannot be trying to persuade people of that notion, because it violates Wiki's policy of neutrality and turns an encyclopedia into a medium for propaganda. Thinktank33 (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of support for removing "narrative" from the actual article title, a move which I agree in, so should we shift the conversation to doing this move? — raekyt 00:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The current title seems inconsistent and religiously biased. When it was changed back and forth to "Genesis creation myth" in 2010, there were lengthy "myth" vs. "narrative" arguments. We could avoid repetition if some neutral editors would summarize the archived discussions. Keahapana (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Strongly disagree! It has already been discussed multiple times in the past and "Genesis creation narrative" was decided on as the name for the article. Zenkai251 (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a compromise in the end, which involved renaming the article but keeping the words "creation myth" prominently in the lead. Do you support that compromise, or do you just want to cherry-pick? Hans Adler 12:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Very Strongly Disagree. If you Google the word "myth" in major English language newspapers and news magazines anywhere in the world, you will find that nearly 100% of the time, it is used to refer to intentionally misleading statements. That is its normal connotation. It's nearly impossible to find the special use of "myth" outside of acadėme, and even there it is scarce. The only argument I can conceive of for using it in this article's title is to deliberately demean the narrative and clearly offend the enormous percentage of followers of the two largest religions in the world for whom this is considered sacred. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please don't start this crapstorm again? Unless I'm mistaken you two (Raeky and Keahapana) were part of the most recent prolonged and unpleasant bickering over this so please try to remember what happened. It was settled, and it was settled based on scholarship and not as some people like to claim, as based on a religious POV. I disagree with opening this can of worms back up. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Very Strongly Disagree. Honestly, this shouldn't even be suggested. It's done. Narrative is a neutral term, and despite the scholarly use of "myth", it is not. Pushing to rename the article -- again -- is highly POV. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Why shouldn't it be suggested? So your position is that we should rename the creation myth and all the pages at List of creation myths that use the phrase creation myth in the title too? Jesanj (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Most entries that are fully about creation myths, primal myths and cosmogonic myths are not titled "creation myth" in fact. The list you are referring to is deceptive in that regard because what appears often to be entries with those titles are in fact redirects to sections of other entries that do not share those titles. So using that list as evidence is a bad idea. Please see my further related comment below.Griswaldo (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Using the list isn't a bad idea, as long as one is aware of the article titles, which one can see here. Jesanj (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." --Ralph Waldo Emerson. Most of those creation myths are not held to be historically true by large numbers of people. So calling them myths may not be considered offensive. There is a difference. You may not like the fact that there are many, many people who consider the biblical creation story to be historical, but it is a fact. You can't use Misplaced Pages as a weapon with which to "smite the believers", so to speak. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• So you think this is a campaign to "smite the believers"? Interesting. Jesanj (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• (ec)There are many, many people who believe a lot of weird things. But we still call astrology a pseudo-science, describe Power Balance bracelets to be found completely ineffective, and dare tell people that professional wrestling matches are predetermined. The number of people who hold the Biblical account to be historical (as opposed to either nonsense or allegorical) is fairly small. And the number of people who do not like some information should not and never be a reason not to include it. I don't like hearing about Camp X-Ray, or global warming, or the relationship between being overweight and health risks... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• comment: there are many equally legitimate alternatives for naming of this article, and waywaywaywayway too much volunteer time has already been wasted at this project on this merry-go-round of changing the title, debating changing it, edit warring over it, and revising and re-revising the nearly 500 wikilinks found throughout the 'pedia pointing to it - round and round, over and over and over again. The amount of time wasted already revisiting this question again and again has been gargantuan. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe so. If you're right, I think we should put a FAQ question/answer at the top. Jesanj (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. I'd go with: "Q. Shouldn't this article be renamed ? A. Are you crazy? To 'have it your way' will force you waste dozens of hours thrashing with editors who viscerally hate the change. And should you succeed, someone else will come along right behind you, start the nightmare all over again and change to something else." ;) Or we could just collect past attempts together and document what a neverending circus the issue has been in a single archive page. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

As a first step, I've listed the various renames that I could identify as actually ever used, even if for a short while. There may be more that I missed. But the fun part comes next: gathering together the zillion megabytes of high intensity "debate" arguing over the issue. I've posted the list here. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Professor. Your list provides a helpful chronological overview. Do you think it might be more useful if placed on this talk page? We agree about the absurd time already wasted arguing over mythiness. Reading some comments above ("one of the words makes 90% of Americans angry", "'narrative' … means the same thing as 'myth'") gave me an idea for possible timesaving. We could start by building a consensus to provide reliable lexical sources in all discussions about word semantics and usages. If someone claims "myth means X" but cannot provide support from a dictionary or other language reference, for present WP purposes, it doesn't mean that. Keahapana (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I already found another one two. Here's a list of the alternatives I confirmed served here as the title for this one topic at some point in time:

1. Creationism
2. Creation
3. Traditional creation myths of various cultures(subsection) Creation myths(main)
4. The two creation stories in Genesis(subsection) Creationism(main)
5. Creationism (theology)
6. Creation (theology)
7. Doctrine of creation
8. Creationist (theology)
9. Abrahamic creationism
10. Bible-based beliefs(subsection) Creation myths(main)
11. Bible-based beliefs(subsection) Creation beliefs(main)
12. The stories of Genesis(subsection) Creation beliefs(main)
13. The stories of Genesis(subsection) Origin beliefs(main)
14. The stories of Genesis(subsection) Origins beliefs(main)
15. Christian(subsection) and Judaism(subsection) Creation within belief systems (main)
16. Judaism and Christian(subsection) Cosmogonic beliefs from Middle East(main)
17. Creation accounts in Genesis
18. Creation account(s) in Genesis
19. Creation according to Genesis
20. Genesis creation myth
21. Genesis creation narrative

Some of these alternatives originated with content related forks and mergers rather than rename disputes. But NPOV disputes raged over the name in nearly every case (including over Creation accounts in Genesis for the plural). Professor marginalia (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of the titles listed above, like "Creation within belief systems", really don't still apply to the content of this article as it is currently constructed. Also, the various "creationism" titles are a bit vague for use in this particular context. I would submit that "narrative" is not in fact equivalent to myth, as narrative can also be used for any other narrative forms. And, honestly, as I believe we already have other articles for beliefs other extant religious groups which use the "myth" word, I have difficulty understanding why this particular article seems to deserve "special treatment" in that regard. However, maybe using something like "Genesis creation account," might be best, as "account" is, to my eyes, more neutral. I would still personally think "Genesis creation myth" would probably be the best, most neutral and informative title, though. John Carter (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

{Long, deep breath} - I think I've done it, most of it anyway: I've pulled together from the archives the debates over the title of the article. Far and away most of it pertains to the term "myth", so I've included most threads I could find debating over the term, whether in the title or not. Huge file. 3 megabytes. Had to spill the last of it to a second page.

To those who have LOTS of time and are eager to fight about it some more: you deserve to know going into it that there's nothing else say hasn't already been said, probably hundreds of times, already, and you don't have to take my word for it. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User:John Carter, I also think that "account" is a more neutral term. But it was argued here by others last time we went through this that "account" implies that it's an account of something that happened, and therefore isn't neutral enough. "Story" implies to some people that it's fiction (I happen to not think that and would be fine with "story"). But "myth" is obviously an incendiary term that has a connotation of being an invented story. Those who argue that it is also used as a scholarly term which does not rule out historicity miss the point that (a) connotations are relevant and (b) since there are non-incendiary terms, one of them should be used. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

How is "myth" incendiary? I'm in a theological faculty, studying religious science, and we call all creation narratives "creation myths". A myth is a narrative, but a narrative isn't necessarily a myth (same with "account", which is even more general). Before being theorized scientifically, the Big Bang was just a narrative too (or an "account"). But it was not a myth.

Let's take for example the definition of "myth" in Mircea Eliade's "Myth and Reality": "Myth narrates a sacred history; it relates an event that took place in primordial Time it relates how something was produced, began to be." Kind of fits Genesis, huh?

So let's say "creation myth" is the scientific consensus, which is why all other pages on Misplaced Pages that deal with them have a title with "creation myth" in it. Then look at WP:POVTITLE. Then realize that this article should be titled "Genesis creation myth". IMO, sticking to the scientific consensus is much more NPOV than trying to accommodate an uncultivated/bad faith crowd.

Finally, a myth IS an invented story. That's why the term was first used by the Christians to characterize other religions' creation accounts, and that's why scientists have adopted the term. So it doesn't matter if some morons somewhere take Genesis literally. It also doesn't matter if some are offended by the term because they don't understand what a myth is. The consensus is the consensus, and the article title should reflect that. Bidouleroux (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Using the word "myth" to characterize the Genesis creation narrative violates WP:NPOV. The suggestion to move the article or add the word "myth" in the lede is equivalent to renaming the article to the Genesis creation fact or something of the like. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 01:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

But everyone else is doing it, so why not us?

Because it is not common in scholarship. How many times does that have to be repeated before people will hear it. A lot of confusion comes about because of the fact that different scholarly contexts will utilize different terminology for the same subjects. So if a creation story is almost entirely dealt with by scholars of mythology, ancient history and comparative literature, what you end up with is a "creation myth," so named. If, on the other hand, the story is not usually dealt with in those contexts you wont see that term used very often. That is the case with the Genesis story. Another factor, whether people like it or not, which is related to the scholarly context issue, has to do with what the cultural context of the story is. If it is ancient, and part of a dead tradition (whether or not it has been revitalized through a contemporary pagan movement) you'll see "myth" used often. This is also true for living and dead traditions described by anthropologists working in the field, and especially in earlier periods. Does that last fact reflect a bias, especially in the early days of anthropology (e.i. colonialism, etc.)? I'm sure it does, but if you consider that true, understand that it's the "myth" label, applied to "primitive" groups that is problematic in that context and not the "narrative" label applied to a Western tradition. So to make a long story short, there are reasons why the literature isn't the same for the labeling of all creation myths, but that's a reality we need to live with. I'll be happy to explain the situation surrounding this particular myth in more detail if anyone asks (because its pretty justifiable IMO), but for now I don't want to make this post to long.Griswaldo (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because we generally do X doesn't mean we can't use Y to retitle. If in scholarship the Genesis creation narrative is more commonly (what, 55%, 65%, 75% of the time?) called a narrative, rather than a myth, then I understand this argument. Even if this is true, however, we can still rename the article. WP:POVTITLE states "the prevalence of the name ... generally overrides concern that Misplaced Pages might appear as endorsing one side of an issue" (my emphasis). The existence of the creation myth and the List of creation myths articles mean that that naming is the neutral WP:COMMONNAME (unless we have those page names wrong). We can rename this article. Jesanj (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

We should not rename this article both because narrative is more commonly used, and because using myth would be pushing a POV. Look, you think using narrative is POV. I think using myth is POV. Frankly, I wouldn't mind changing the article's title to "Genesis creation account". The problem is that there were people who considered that to be POV on the site of it being historical. "Narrative" was chosen as a compromise. If you're going to push for it to be renamed to Genesis creation myth, I'm going to go back to pushing for Genesis creation account, and we'll just wind up compromising with Genesis creation narrative again. Why don't you spare us the drama and drop this. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Narrative" is not most common in usage, "story" is by far most common. "Narrative" was the compromise decision. I actually pushed for "story" myself, and there were others who agreed with me, but "narrative" is what we settled on.Griswaldo (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No. I think Genesis creation narrative and Genesis creation myth are both neutral titles. I just think it's silly that some think we have to keep this title when creation myth is the common name for the phenomenon, as it is used exclusively in other article titles here. If you don't think "account" has a chance, please don't pursue it. Jesanj (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether user Jesanj has ever tried to push something here (—I don't see any evidence for that—), but, Lisa, this sounds like an extremely wp:POINTY and highly disruptive thing to do: "If you're going to push for it to be renamed to Genesis creation myth, I'm going to go back to pushing for Genesis creation account." - DVdm (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly not my intent. My point is that the only reason I was willing to back down on account was the compromise. If the compromise no longer holds, I'm going to push for the title that I think is most correct, which is Genesis creation account. I have never stopped thinking that account would be a better title. But for exactly the opposite motives that WP:POINTY refers to, I've chosen to go along with a title that I don't think is good. For the sake of consensus.

It seems abundantly clear to me that some editors want the word "myth" in the title precisely because it carries a dismissive connotation. I have no evidence that Jesanj is one of these, but my objections to the renaming stand either way. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if it was not your intent, it is one of the pointiest things I have seen here since a while. What seems abundantly clear to you, could be wrong, and inspired by lack of assumption of good faith. - DVdm (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Creation myth is commonly used in[REDACTED] (scholarly as it is); just because this is religious myth changes nothing ... get real it's a creation myth (whichever definition you use). Abtract (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't whether or not it is a creation myth and please remember that we are clear about the identification as a creation myth in the lead. The problem is whether or not it isn't also something else and whether or not because of that, and because of how that has effected relaible sources, we ought to title the entry to reflect those facts. People who argue for myth seem to consistently argue from the false position that if we aren't titling this with the word "creation myth" we are kowtowing to the religious belief. Well I have news for you. If we were kowtowing to the religious POV this entry would be titled Creation, not "Genesis creation narrative." The current title says specifically that this is a story about creation found in Genesis. In some contexts, especially the ancient context and the comparative mythological context "myth" makes sense, but in other contexts it doesn't. I'm a social scientist, and if I were to conduct empirical research on a religious group that found this story meaningful in some way, starting from the premise that it is a myth (in the scholarly sense) would be extremely counterproductive and may indeed be completely misleading. What this story is above all, is a story. Period. And I'll repeat myself, scholarship is on my side here.Griswaldo (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Policy note: Consensus can change.

Some articles go through extensive editing and discussion to achieve a neutral and a readable product. Similarly, other articles are periodically challenged and/or revised. This is a normal function of the ongoing process of consensus. It is useful to examine the article's talk page archives and read through past discussions before re-raising an issue in talk – there is no sense in forcing everyone to rehash old discussions without need.
However, consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed.

Keahapana (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Genesis creation narrative," in my opinion, would be more appropriate than "Genesis creation myth" - without the 'sting' of the word myth. Myth carries the connotation of fiction or falseness that is offensive to some , while a narrative by definition is more neutral and can be metaphor, analogy, symbolism, fiction, or truth. I think it is a blending of all POVs and could also be useful for other religions as well (in sidestepping disputes among denominations, sects, etc.). I am referring to the use of the word "narrative" versus "myth" in telling of stories from different religions. In this way Misplaced Pages can impart clear information in a balanced way without pushing a particular religious leaning (myth or truth). Dikonped (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You should not worry about offending people by a title: Misplaced Pages:Offensive_material. As far as this discussion is concerned, the word "myth" carries no 'sting'. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) 23:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the basic question that must be asked:
How does this particular story about creation differ from all of the stories in this list. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) 23:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That particular "basic question" has been answered so many times, it's starting to look like a case of "I didn't hear that". There is a substantial amount of theological sources that specifically demonstrates that there is widespread objection to classifying Genesis in the genre of myth, and there are whole volumes of scholarly debate over what "myth" means. Thus there is an established point of view that can be demonstrated with sources to exist, be widespread and significant that objects to calling it a "myth", and some would have this point of view brushed under the carpet as if it were a heresy to be stomped out without mention like some kind of damnatio memoriae. The objection to scriptures being termed myths is actually true for the religious narratives of all the widespread religions, including the Mahabharata, Quran, Lotus Sutra, and Book of Mormon, among others: none of these should be termed with the agenda driven label of "myth" or "mythology", because it clearly stems from an external point-of-view, not a truly neutral point of view. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Talking about religions from a theological viewpoint can never be neutral, since theology requires that you hold the particular postulates of a religion (the existence of God, etc.) as true, even if temporarily, i.e. theology may be a rational exercise, but it is not and cannot be scientific. The only neutral point of view on religion comes from the science called "religious science". No recognized scientist that studies religion will say that the Genesis account of creation is not a myth on the same level as other creation myths of other religions. Heck, even most catholic theologians nowadays view the Genesis account of creation as a myth when they are not talking from a theological viewpoint. In fact, the only people who say religious creation accounts aren't myths are those that take a literal approach to their own religion's scripture, i.e. those who are biased and thus do not express a neutral point of view.

Put another way, theology takes religion as being true, science takes religion simply as a fact. Therefore theologians are not, by definition, neutral about religion and the contents of religions. If the decision was made elsewhere in Misplaced Pages to put "myth" in the title of articles about religious accounts of creation, then this article should follow the standard and include "myth" also. Bidouleroux (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a brilliant argument.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) 23:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"the Hebrews borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to the unique conception of their one God"

This statement is impossible to prove. It sould not be stateted as a fact, especially in the first paragraph. Also, one outdated, unreliable source is not good enough for such a ridiculous statement to remain in the article. I added "it is possible that" directly in front of the statement, but a certain someone reverted it. The statement definitely needs to be removed or at least neutralized. Zenkai251 (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The claim is fine. There's nothing wrong with the source, and the premise could easily be found in probably hundreds of perfectly valid references besides this one.Professor marginalia (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I explained this on my talk page, but to repeat, here's a quote from the source: "In order to develop their beliefs, the Hebrews borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to the unique conception of their one God." The authors have an impressive scholarly resume, and the book was published by NYU Press in 1996. What is "outdated" and "unreliable" about it?   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And how the HECK does this source (or any other) know this? Were they there when Genesis was written. Does Genesis say that it borrowed ideas from the Mesopotamians? The ridiculous statement is completely IMPOSSIBLE to prove, and therefore, does not belong in the article. Zenkai251 (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Archaeology, literary analysis, and other methods are useful for these sorts of claims. Luckily, the authors of this source are recognized scholars in these fields. With all that said, their methods aren't really all that important for our purposes. Per WP:V, we report what the reliable sources say, and we have a reliable scholarly source reporting the Hebrews adapted some Mesopotamian themes. That is what we have to report, short of a preponderance of other sources to the contrary.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said: This is IMPOSSIBLE to prove. Zenkai251 (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"Proof" doesn't apply, Zenkai251. Historians and other such scholars never "prove" claims. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are equally many (or more) historians and scholars that would say that Genesis is NOT borrowed from the Mesopotamians. Do you just want to ignore historical consensus? Zenkai251 (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, we have a reliable scholarly source saying the Hebrews adapted some Mesopotamian themes. To change that, we need a preponderance of other sources to the contrary. You're welcome to present contrary sources to be considered if you feel the source we're using is misrepresenting the academic consensus.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it is stated in the article as if it were a fact. We can't say something is a fact unless we have PROOF. That is why the edit I made should remain in the article. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again, "proof" doesn't come into it. I've begun a rough survey of sorts to see where the scholarly consensus seems to be. The term "borrowed" in the quote might be the prickly bit here. But I'll try to scope this out in sources and see where we're at. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's correct to say that history doesn't aim at proof - it's not like theoretical physics. What historians aim at is establishing probability based on available evidence. Zenkai251 is correct that we should avoid outdated sources. I don't think Sarna is outdated on this subject, but it could be useful to see what more recent works say. PiCo (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenkai251 has a point. The only ones who know for sure if the Hebrews did or did not borrow from Mesopotamian themes are the Hebrews themselves and they are long dead. The way the sentence reads, someone else, who did not live at the time, knows for sure what the Hebrews did. This is certainly Sarna's well educated conclusion and opinion and he has the right to it. It really needs to be noted that way. Sarna may or may not be correct. We are not talking about gravity, but what people believed and why. One must always leave room for uncertainty on such topics. Mthoodhood (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem with all things in history - the only people who know are dead. We have accept that and move on. PiCo (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note- Are there any objections to adding "it is possible that" in front of the disputed quote? I don't see anything wrong with doing that; it is a perfectly reasonable edit.Zenkai251 (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried something else. "It is possible" may just emphasize the wrong connotation there. The themes are clearly there; not just "possibly there". But whether they were "borrowed" from a different culture or both myth traditions derived from common roots--I don't think the source was necessarily arguing a distinction like this there, but may have just used it as a turn of phrase. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would point out that those agitating against this passage are ignoring the core of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." That it is verifiable that expert scholars hold that "the Hebrews borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to the unique conception of their one God" is sufficient. It is not necessary to 'prove' this viewpoint to the satisfaction of individual editors. I would also recommend against watering down this conclusion to a mere 'possibility' when the experts do not. This would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to the contrary viewpoint without any published support. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 03:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Minor change: Sarna does say Genesis borrows "themes", but other sources make it clear that more is involved - see e.g. Dalley, Fishbane, or any of the commentaries listed, esp. Kissling. PiCo (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Then I'd suggest a consensus summary of these views, noting any dissent (either not going as far as the consensus, or going further) in the footnote, which should cite each of the sources summarised (probably as a bullet-pointed list). Hrafn_Stalk(P) 03:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no dissent - none that I've found, anyway. It's just that Sarna talks about "themes" being borrowed, while others talk more specifically about motifs (such as the Tree of Life, the Cosmic Temple, etc). Maybe just a matter of definition. PiCo (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem. The claim is simply unverifiable, and thus should be removed or toned down. Zenkai251 (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The claim is made by a reliable source (Sarna) and is repeated by several other reliable sources (see the bibliography) and there are no dissenting claims (that I cann find); it therefore meets Misplaced Pages guidelines for inclusion.

If you'd like to do something that would be useful, you could go through the section on Composition and check out the references - see if what the article says is an accurate reflection of what each source says. Do it one subsection at a time, to make it manageable. Report any problems here, and we can look at them. Not only problems, also suggestions for improving the article. That would be a really useful quality-checking thing. PiCo (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source. It's someones opinion. There are no facts to back it up. It doesn't matter how many people parrot someone elses opinion, it still doesn't make it true. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

(Published) expert opinion is a reliable source, especially where it is the majority expert consensus. Whether or not you think it is "true" is irrelevant -- "verifiability, not truth". These expert opinions have been "published by a reliable source", so they are verifiable. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 03:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems you don't know what verifiable means. Let me help you out: varifiable(adj)-capable of being tested(varified or falsefied) by experiment or observation. As you can see, the disputed claim can not be varified, therefore does not belong here. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:Complete bollocks! WP:V clearly states that in this context verifiability means "whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source". Your arguments on this topic are WP:DEADHORSE, WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:Tendentious editing. Kindly stop. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 03:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You kindly stop, please. It's a fact that someone's opinion CANNOT be a reliable source. You can deny it all you want, but I am correct and you know it. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Your position has no basis in either policy nor practice. If you really think your ludicrous position has any legs, then you are welcome to take it to WP:RSN and get it laughed at there as well. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 04:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

According to wikipedia policy you are wrong; on Misplaced Pages, expert opinions are reliable sources. If you disagree with policy that's fine but we're not going to violate it because you don't like it. Nformation 04:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

My ludicrous position will be laughed at? I'm deeply sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I'm sorry that you cannot grasp reality. My position is 100% correct and everyone knows it, they just don't want to admit that they are wrong. Zenkai251 (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Then take it to RSN and get outside opinions. Despite your claim that people simply don't want to admit to being wrong, you may want to consider that you don't understand[REDACTED] policy, and further, that you're simply not convincing. Consensus seems to have formed and unless you have sources there is really nothing else to discuss. Nformation 04:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If " position is 100% correct and everyone knows it", then you should have no problem getting it upheld on WP:RSN. The fact that you do nothing but continue to baldly assert your righteousness here, rather than doing so, would seem to indicate that you know that nobody gives a rat's arse for your quixotic crusade. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 04:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

@Zenkai251 - you are wrong on this. You're misunderstanding how to apply policy when it comes to judging the claims, sources, and weight of published expert opinion here. If you're unwilling to accept this in this case, (and many editors here have tried to help you understand), it might help you understand if you were to gain more experience editing topics you don't have strong opinions about yet. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Is all that needed?

In this sentence:

It was a product of the cultural world of the ancient Near East and yet distinctively different - Nahum Sarna, Chair of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University, comments: "The Hebrews borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to the unique conception of their one God."

Is the first part; It was a product of the cultural world of the ancient Near East and yet distinctively different based on: "The Hebrews borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to the unique conception of their one God."??

If so, we don't need such a large sentence. there are two options. 1. the first part with a ref including the quote. or 2. The last part-- a quote from Sarna. Mthoodhood (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. (The first part is a paraphrase of the second, the Sarna quote: I thik it's needed as an introduction. If you think it doesn't work we could delete the whole sentence and the Sarna quote might possibly fit in somewhere else).PiCo (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Part of wikiproject mythology?

The following discussion 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 heading is not necessary, and it is quite incorrect and misleading. Genesis creation narrative is NOT mythology; it is Religion. There is a distinct difference between the two. Zenkai251 (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The template is neither "incorrect" nor "misleading". The 'Genesis creation narrative' is one of many creation myths, and so is legitimately part of that wikiproject. "Religion' and 'mythology' are not mutually exclusive and many (and probably most) mythologies are or were attached to some religion. Zenkai251 appears to be simply pushing a Christian exceptionalism that has no basis in Misplaced Pages policy. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 07:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken yet again. I'm not pushing "Christian exceptionalism"; I'm pushing neutrality. The template needs to be removed because it is false. Zenkai251 (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

So you're imaginary? Zenkai251 (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenkai, you just avoided a topic ban on this. Step away. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What did I do? Zenkai251 (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Drop it. Talk to your mentor who bailed you out last time. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

All creation narratives/myths should be part of wikiproject:mythology. Just as (for example) all flood myths, including the Noah myth, should. Wikiproject:religion is also appropriate. The 2 aren't mutually exclusive. I'm surprised that this is contentious.Colonel Tom 3:10 am, Today (UTC−6)

And just for the record, Hrafn's contribution here has not been helpful: his tone has been confrontational, and instead of lowering the emotional temperature he's made every attempt, though no doubt not intentionally, to shift Zenkai251 from engagement with other editors to hostility. I think it would be a very good idea if Hrafn also stepped away. PiCo (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

PiCo: Zenkai251 was not seeking "engagement with other editors" but rather a renewed WP:BATTLEGROUND to continue his crusade from Talk:Adam (where he made similar demands and showed more interest in other editors' religious viewpoints than in sources or policy). Whilst I (eventually) took "confrontational" exception to his repeated, strident and unfounded demands in #"the Hebrews borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to the unique conception of their one God" above, my use of the Tilting at windmills above was an attempt to lower the heat through an oblique criticism. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 02:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfounded demands you say? That's nonsense, of course. My "demands" were to simply add a few words to make the article more accurate. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Bias

I was a bit shocked to see such a slant on this article. I am particularly referring to this section:

Despite the thorough-going monotheism of Genesis 1-11, and especially Genesis 1, there remain traces of this underlying, older, polytheistic inheritance: thus, when God says "Let us make man in our own image," the most probable reading is that he is speaking to the members of the bene elohim council, and it can be inferred from Genesis 3 ("See," says God, "the man has become like one of us, knowing good from evil...") that the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which give benefits with which the bene elohim gods were associated (knowledge, immortality), were placed in Eden for the benefit of the gods.

Two other explanations should be mentioned, no matter if one thinks they are true or not. Some people regard this expression, "Let us make man in our own image," to be a use of majestic plural, thus the referent is actually singular. Additionally, there is the reading that this "us" and "our" supports the concept of a trinity. While it may not fit under the same heading in the article, the current wording is too strong and suggests that there is an overwhelming consensus on this expression. If you knew nothing about the Bible and came to read this, you would walk away with the wrong impression of popular views. Additionally, I have seen conflicting scholarly reports on this expression. Please change. Thanks. 76.19.132.141 (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You'll find the range of views that you mention (royal plural/council of gods) are all noted further on, under Day 6. The paragraph you're noting here is about polytheistic survivals in Genesis, so it's appropriate to focus on the "council of gods" idea here. So far as I'm aware, Penchansky is representing the scholarly consensus here (compare him with McKenzie, Smith, and with the various commentaries on Genesis listed in the bibliography), but you can read him in detail and get back to us. PiCo (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Internal structure of Genesis 1

I've reverted a recent edit by an anon ISP regarding the internal structure of Genesis 1. As the edit was no doubt made in good faith and as the issue is somewhat complex I thought I should explain it here.

The proposed edit was to the effect that the narrative of Genesis 1 is in the form of a chiasm. A chiasm is a rhetorical figure in which the the first series of elements is repeated in the second series, but in reverse order, with a central, non-repeated, element forming a "hinge" and containing the most important statement of the whole. The proposal sees the acts on the "days" of creation from 1 to 3 forming the first part, day 4 forming the hinge, and acts on days 5 and 6 forming the last section and inverting the order of the first group. To put this as a diagram, it goes ABCD-E-DCBA, with the creation of sun and moon and so on at the centre. (It's not the days themselves that are repeated, but the creative acts within them).

This stands in opposition to the so-called "framework" model, which sees the days themselves as the essential elements. In the framework model, the diagram comes out quite different: ABC,ABC (in other words, the first group of days is repeated in the same order in the second, and there's no central hinge). Contrary to the way the anonymous ISP edited the article, you can't have both explanations: either it's a chiasm, or it's a framework, but not both.

The anonymous ISP references two books. I won't go into it, but neither are mainstream academic works. I did a search to see how widespread the chiasm idea is, and got no hits at all; a search for framework, on the other hand, got plenty. It's not for Misplaced Pages to decide what's the right interpretation, but at this point, I don't think the chiasm idea is well enough established for us to mention it. PiCo (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"Common understanding"

Both "The common understanding" and "The most common understanding" are grammatically correct. The main difference between the two is that the latter weakens the claim (by implying the existence of other common understandings). This should not be done without evidence that this is closer to the intent of the cited source. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. One is definitely more grammatically correct than the other. Zenkai251 (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The third paragraph starts with "The common understanding". It should start with "The most common understanding" or "A common understanding" to be the most grammatically correct in this context. I truly don't know why people are reverting this edit! Zenkai251 (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No. The original is the grammatically correct way of stating that there is a single-and-only common understanding. Your alternatives suggest that there may be multiple. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 07:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

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