Template:Pbneutral

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion: Interfaith B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia'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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? 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. Christianity B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Judaism B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Bible B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Mythology B‑class Top‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

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

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

Frankly, after all the above chatter and subsequent edits to find consensus, the result as I read it has been a loss of perspicuity and cogency. The lede is too long and detailed as it stands. It needs to set out a straightforward and clear overview of the topic which reflects the scholarly consensus of the topic. Further nuance that currently invades the lead should be left for the body. In my view, the earlier version that simply set out how scholars understand the construction and origins of genesis was much better. Finally, I might observe that overly long leads that start to lose themselves in this kind of detail, scream edit war and turn off readers interested in basic information about the topic. So in the ened, editors fight amongst themselves whilst sending readers scurrying elsewhere. Eusebeus (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly consensus is simply one POV and we can't be biased to one view over another on this topic. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how NPOV works Gorlitz. NPOV means that we do, by definition, bias ourselves toward the scholarly consensus.Farsight001 (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to have a note (and this is one thing I actually did propose first, and was argued out of seeing the necessity of it above), the current revision paraphrasing the Encyclopaedia Brittanica is fine. No objections. BTW, I did like whoever had the essay of religious writings in their userspace - but my personal sympathies, if they don't align with academic consensus, can have no bearing on your, my, or his edits to Wikipedia. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 22:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments:

1. @Farsight001 "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." So that means if only academic sources are represented, then it's POV. That is how how NPOV works.
2. The current note does meet my objections with leaving the phrase bare, although the mechanism of tracing the note may result in problems for some, but that should not be our concern. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Actual question (don't bite): "I am not aware of a scholarly, academic source which suspects that Genesis is a historical account outside of (perhaps) Christian/Jewish/Muslim theology...": this kind of idea (that Genesis is historical in some sense) is present in many, if not most, published sources (as are most influenced by Jewish or Christian theology to some degree, including virtually every ref given in the article), even if they are not by men who are considered the greatest exegetes alive (like Brown, Luke Timothy Johnson, Sarna, Brueggemann, Carson, Wenham, etc., etc.): doesn't WP:WEIGHT necessitate including it somewhere in the article (a note seems like a better place than the body of the article to me, but even sections on "Genesis in Theology - Religion X", due to the fact that more than 50% of people alive are adherents of one of those religions? (I'm going to take a random guess and say about 20% of people are literal believers in them, given the polls I've seen over the years where even 22-26% of Brits and Americans held geocentrism to be true.) This must be balanced with the top-echelon scholarly consensus (as is presented properly in the lead, with all major scholarly viewpoints represented proportionately to their prevalence per word) as well, though, so (thinking aloud) I do not believe it is valid to include such (even if widely published, as they are views not held by the top echelon of exegetes) in the body of the article itself; we don't make 25% of the article on the solar system about Ptolemaic system because 25% of people don't know any better. Essentially, how do we determine weight? Is it depending solely on those sources judged to be superior, or depending on all mainstream published sources?

As a note, I do believe Genesis 1 to be history, as do many of these quoted scholars - of course it's not history in the modern sense (that is, scientific history), which wasn't even a glimmer in the mind of any man until Gibbon wrote The Decline and Fall. For comparison, I'm assuming at least one of you have read Livy: do you think the Roman standard-bearers actually threw the golden eagle in to the ranks of the enemy whenever the tide of battle was turning, so that the legions would be ashamed, rush the enemy to catch up with the standard and rout them, or is it a symbolic motif? The "days of creation" are much like "throwing the standard" in Livy: it's history, but not history in the sense we've used the term since the Enlightenment. If I've expressed myself poorly, I apologize. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 22:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Does something like this satisfy those objectors to the current note? (Note, that I do believe the current note to be fully acceptable): "'Creation myth' is used in this article in the academic sense defined in the Encyclopedia Britannica: a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it. It implies no judgment on the religious truth-value of what is thus described. See article creation myth for further details."? St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 22:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It addresses most, if not all, of the concerns raised to date. As such I think it would be acceptable. I would like direct input from Zenkai251 as he (assuming male-ness) started this discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me too. I do doubt that our literalist readers will stop to consider what it means, let alone follow the link, but at least it will be there and we can refer them to it. PiCo (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I very much disagree with including wording which discusses, in any sense, the 'truth' of Genesis. That is not our job, and by saying "this doesn't mean Genesis is false", we directly imply that it may be true, which is entirely unwarranted. As an academic encyclopedia, must be impartial to the topic. John, I read through your comment, and I'm absolutely amazed by some of it; you went so far as to say that the idea Genesis is true appears in "most published sources". That's nonsense. My intention is not to be uncivil or uncollaborative, but to convey the depth of my amazement that other editors are agreeing with that kind of sentiment. We can't be basing content issues on random guesses about the number of people who might believe something, which appears to be one of the prime arguments for this wording. I'd like to stress, again, that controversial articles get these kinds of drive-by complaints all the time. We cannot compromise neutrality by making claims about the historical validity of Genesis just to appease those editors. Providing the definition of creation myth in the note is plain and obvious without associated neutrality/scope concerns. If an editor can't read or understand that note, the correct response is to direct them to the article, and to the ample references we have for the term.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like John's wording. It's much better than the current wording. I say go ahead and make the change. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mann Jess, you misunderstand me: I said (or meant to say, as I apologized in advance for being unclear) that in most published sources, Genesis is held to be true in some sense or to contain history in some sense - it's hardly ever held to be literally true, nor narrative history, but it is held to contain truth, although generally in a symbolic manner (e.g. the many interpretations of the story of the fall, which never include an apple; the statements about Gen 1 being about God's providence or majesty in the lead, and the interpretation of creation as manifesting the author's intention of demonstrating the dependence of everything on God [this one's in every modern exegesis]: it is held to contain this sort of symbolic history/myth/"timeless truth", not literal truth of narrative history:). I said, "of course it's not history in the modern sense (that is, scientific history)", and directly compared it to (fictional) symbolic motifs in Livy (specifically, the recurring throwing of the Eagle standard in to enemy ranks). Many (most) of these sources call it symbolic [and/or metaphorical and/or allegorical] history (Brueggemann, Wenham) or myth (which are essentially the same thing, according to the definition given: "a symbolic account of..."). In that sense, "history" no more implies "certain, narrative truth regarding the past" than does "myth" imply "certain, narrative falsehood regarding the past".

I believe most other editors are agreeing because they were able to muddle their way through my unclear prose: if they took it the way you have, I would disagree with it myself! I added "religious truth" to my proposed wording to make it clear that it had nothing to do with its historical truth-value one way or the other. As I said, I am content with the note the way it is (or with no note at all), but, echoing PiCo above, spoke in the hope that it will stabilize the first sentence of the article, and will be an acceptable wording to those two or three editors still objecting.

I will hold for at least a bit more discussion before I make the proposed change (including a reply from you to my hopefully-clarified statement) due to your objection. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 01:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the random guesses of numbers had nothing to do with the wording - they were a completely separate post, a thinking-aloud sort of musing on, "should there be sections or articles such as 'Genesis in Theology - Religion X'", along with addressing the views of other posters raised about N/POV. (The three comments had, I believe, seven trains of thought between them.) As regards to the other posters, if you read the entirety of the comment, you'll see that I conclude, "no, I don't think it's legitimate to add such in [referencing the poll that has 26% of US citizens as geocentrists], seeing how we don't give 25% of the article on solar system over to Ptolemaic views". I'm not a journalist: the little writing I do is extremely complex prose narrative, and some philosophy and theology (which has to be copy-edited before it's fit for publication, and also gives rise to my incessant need to qualify every statement, which you overlooked): I have to try to keep my length down and intelligibility up when I write, as demonstrated by giving rise to misunderstanding in an obviously intelligent editor.

As Cicero said, and I must on Wikipedia aspire to: “When you wish to speak, be concise; that the minds of men take in quickly what you say, learn it, and retain it correctly. Every word that is superfluous only pours over the side of a brimming mind.” St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 03:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Cicero should have said: "Keep it simple!" PiCo (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid! It's ironic that I never noticed that Cicero's rhetoric is the antithesis of what he's preaching in that snippet, and I simplified it significantly by quoting from memory. I'm more like Cicero does (however much less eloquent) and less as Cicero preaches. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 12:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This remark above to my comment, Scholarly consensus is simply one POV and we can't be biased to one view over another on this topic is astonishing from someone who wishes to contribute to an encyclopedic treatment of a topic. By this logic, we should go to every single article that makes reference to an event or development more than 6,000 years old and qualify it based on the extant views of some who argue, in published sources, that God created the Heavens and the Earth 6,000 years ago. Like Mastodons. Or Quasars. It is so mind-bogglingly indefensible, so astonishingly wrong, that I cannot even think how to respond other than to suggest the editor seriously consider how he or she thinks an encyclopedia should be written if scholarly consensus is not to be considered authoritative in the construction and dissemination of knowledge. I mean, really? I cannot believe that was actually written down and saved. Maybe you should try Conservapedia, where the view that reality has a well-known liberal bias is warmly endorsed. Eusebeus (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree, I think Wikipedia already makes far too many concessions to extreme, minority pseudo-scientific views Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your position is so mind-bogglingly indefensible that it astounds me. We're not talking about nut-jobs but "orthodox" authors. The issue is simple: there was a split in scholarship starting around 150 years ago. We are only reflecting one branch.

Just a side point, since "scholarship" places the writing of Genesis to 600 BC, not sure how you got your number of 6000 years ago. Even if we take it to be Moses, the earliest dates place it around 1200 BC. Only if you consider it to be an oral tradition could you give it such an early date. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right, Görlitz, my apologies. I was labouring under the delusional belief that you had written "scholarly consensus", i.e. what the scholarship agrees upon, is simply - simply, nice - one POV. Eusebeus (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sarcasm. How quaint and perfectly dismissive. You continue to labour under the assumption that Wikipedia is based on scholarly consensus when it fact it is based on reliable sources of which scholarly consensus makes up only a small portion. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)." Please notice the emphasis on "significant minority views". There are many other things that Wikipedia is not but I'll let you discover those things. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief: "...reliable sources of which scholarly consensus makes up only a small portion...." You are actually doubling down on your remark? The sheer inanity of declaring that scholarly consensus represents simply one POV and a small portion of what should be considered reliably sourced information beggars belief and would have devastating consequences for any exercise that is about the promotion of knowledge. Is it really your view that encyclopedic treatment of a topic should consider scholarly consensus as simply a small portion of the overall "reliable" material that should be provided? If so, I fear the legitimacy and integrity of your participation in what is after all an exercise about disseminating knowledge can and should be rightfully called into serious doubt. Eusebeus (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

−

Are you able to elaborate on what the "significant minority views" are and provide reliable sources for them, just so we all know what we might be discussing? Thank you.Theroadislong (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Eusebeus - Please drop your attitude. The inanity of your assumption that only scholarly consensus should be considered is the reason for my statement. Perhaps small portion is hyperbole and it should simply read "portion". I would even recast it a large portion of the discussion, but it's not the only opinion that should be discussed.

@ Theroadislong - You realize, of course, that that phrase is from WP:RS. I'll leave it up to discussion, and some has been offered. However, to exclude anything that doesn't agree with scholarly consensus simply because it doesn't agree with it is WP:POV. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales says "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" It would be helpful to us all if you did otherwise we don't know what we are discussing? Kind regardsTheroadislong (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it possible to spin these last comments off in to a new section so Mann Jess doesn't get lost, confused, or just completely disregard due to information overload and inanity my request for her input above, about the consensus for the change of wording in the note? Please refer to WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, and WP:WIKILAWYER in their entirety. The last half score comments have been the same thing, reworded, and the same objection, reworded. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 18:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The inglorious spectacle of two long-time Wikipedians having their little talk page tantrum throwing around elementary links and engaging in high-minded posturing would normally be grounds for nesting the exchange. but in this case, as Theroadislong has asked a pertinent question, then it might as well stay up to the mutual embarrassment no doubt of at least one, and maybe two editors who should have learned (along with what constitutes reliable sources and undue weight) better in 6 years. To answer your question, the note wording ("as used in britannica...") comes across to me (and probably me alone) as sounding amateurish, like the kind of thing one would find in a first year undergraduate essay, but not in an encyclopedia. Eusebeus (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the fanatical, inane, extremist POV positions of editors like Eusebeus and Theroadislong that causes so much problems on WP. SmittysmithIII (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are ruining Wikipedia! Eusebeus (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebeus, if you feel you are ruing Wikipedia, and if you care about it, you should stop editing it. However, when you push one POV, you are ruining it. I'm not asking for any one opinion any more weight than it's due, but to simply exclude it because it doesn't meet the "scholarly" criterion is not appropriate. I'm sorry you don't see that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@John, things are already heated enough, and it seems we both agree that postulating on the number of Christians in the world and the number of refs they may have influenced doesn't help develop the article, or this note in particular. Let's just disagree on those points and concentrate on the note directly. It seems to me that everyone agrees that including a note using the def from creation myth is acceptable. A few editors seem to prefer adding additional wording to spell it out further - "this doesn't mean Genesis is false" - but that's garnered some objections. A few others, including me, prefer removing the note entirely, but that's garnered some objections. It seems that the note with the current wording (or a variation thereof) is the most agreeable solution to everyone. How about we keep that, and see how it fares? BTW, I agree with Eusebeus that the lead-in "...as used in Britannica..." is a bit much. Are we aware of any other definition for "creation myth"? If not, then simply defining it should be sufficient. I'd support trimming that, and maybe including a direct ref to Britannica instead.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if we have too many objections to this now, or in the future, an RfC for outside opinions might be helpful. It seems we have a broadly agreeable solution, so I think we can just stick with that and avoid one for now. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a simple, polite request for user:Walter Görlitz to "elaborate on what the significant minority views are and provide reliable sources for them so we could all know what we might be discussing" and I have been attacked as being "fanatical, inane and extremist POV" I'm sorry but I really don't understand why? Can anyone explain please?Theroadislong (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think every scholarly POV should be included, may I remind you that Dawkins and others call the story in Genesis insane and for the feeble-mind morons or some such? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dawkins isn't exactly a reliable or scholarly source when it comes to anything outside of biology, let alone philosophy and even more so Biblical exegesis: he has no qualifications in the field nor has he written anything beyond polemic (in keeping with the style of the so-called "New Atheists", all fluff and soundbytes for an age of soundbytes, unlike the Good Old Atheists like Bertrand Russell and Antony Flew, back in the 1960s at least). However, thank you for a colorful example that hopefully will break the cycle of back-and-forth here. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 23:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think the current note is redundant and brings unnecessary attention to the issue. What the note states is all covered at the creation myth article, which is linked. There's no need for this overkill. I just noticed that the opening sentence at the creation myth article states: "A creation myth or creation story is...", so why not incorporate that here by expanding the link to include the term "story"? Thoughts? — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 23:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, correct me if I'm wrong here. My understanding is that the words 'narrative' and 'story' aren't in the first sentence of the lede of Genesis creation narrative, and 'myth' is, is because 'narrative' and 'story' have a more similar meaning than 'narrative' and 'myth'. As 'narrative' is in the title of this article (which has, of course, been discussed), it is not necessary for 'narrative' to be repeated in the first sentence. Using the same reasoning, 'story' has been excluded from the first sentence of the lede. Now, in Creation myth, the word 'myth' is in the title and 'narrative' and 'story' aren't, so it makes sense to include one or the other in that article's lede. Colonel Tom 23:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the current note states, the "myth" that is used in this article is meant to be the academic definition as defined in Encyclopedia Britannica and other sources, i.e. "a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it". So in the context of this article at least, "myth" is synonymous with "narrative" and/or "story". — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 23:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I understand the point you're making. The discussions above (the discussions which resulted in a consensus to keep 'myth' in the lede) indicate a disagreement with that perspective, however, in that many editors clearly do not consider 'myth' and 'narrative' to be synonymous in the context of this article. Colonel Tom 00:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC) edit - (BTW, I agree with your first sentence. I also believe that the note is redundant and unnecessary.) Colonel Tom 01:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FoxCE, you bolded the wrong part. Let me fix it: "a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it". But then again this is a long tired argument. Even with the clear consensus of using "myth", those who want "narrative" don't give up.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who is being referenced by "they don't give up", and to clarify that I have no problems with the use creation myth, but do understand how it could be misunderstood by those uninitiated in the academic use of the term. There are academicians who prefer the use narrative, my former OT prof being one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not referring to anyone in particular. Apologies if that sounded combative. And I do agree that the note is a bit unnecessary. Apologist even. It just doesn't sit well with me at all how Genesis is being given this special treatment in deference to some of the readers. It's perfectly obvious in past discussions that the real reason why some want this is because it's Christian. You don't see this kind of arguments in Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, or whatnot. It's a bit like the old practice of demonization, but in reverse.

Don't worry though, I have no desire to jump into the same debate again.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with everyone above, the note is unnecessary. I've been saying that from the beginning, but few others spoke up, so I've been focusing on the wording instead. I think there are some pretty solid reasons why the note should be excluded altogether... and based on the number of voices here disagreeing with it, I think it makes sense to 1) remove it until we have consensus it should stay and have decided on wording, 2) if there are dissenting voices who want it in, hold an RfC to gather a broader opinion. Does that sound reasonable to everyone?   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me, and I still support my above "[[creation myth|creation myth or story]]" link change suggestion. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 02:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with both Jess and Fox. Fox's suggestion seems to be the most efficient. N^oformation ^Talk 02:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fox, I think we don't even need to do that - after reading all this palaver, all of it an attempt by good editors to accommodate just one other editor, I've come to the conclusion that there's really no way to placate those for whom "myth" is an emotive trigger rather than an academic definition. See my new subthread below. PiCo (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, we should probably leave it as-is for the time being. Perhaps my suggestion can be harbored in the event that a significant number of users begin to demand a further compromise of some sort. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 03:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too much to read through until at least the weekend, I would just note that with respect to "reliable", there are sources which are "reliable" scholarship and are preferred (books by recognized experts, peer reviewed papers, etc.), then there are sources which are equally "reliable" but only as to being acknowledged spokespersons for a particular viewpoint.

Scholarship is scholarship (within which there may be viewpoints), and viewpoints are viewpoints, but the viewpoint twain shall never meet. Apologies for stating the obvious. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@PiCo who wrote "there's really no way to placate those for whom 'myth' is an emotive trigger". I disagree completely. On the contrary, there is no way to placate those for whom "myth" is an intentional poke at those to whom the account is more than simply myth. What those of you who rely on "academic" credentials fail to understand is that it's offensive to many. While I full understand its use, it's underlying offence is greater than its academic credentials. It is hubris to continue to insist on its use in this context without expounding on its meaning or at least clarifying it. However I also understand that is article is patrolled by a small group of academics who don't think like humans and their POV will continue to be exerted here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's been said, Walter, but wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We just had a long and excruciating arbcom case about offense as it pertains to religious believers and that we're not censored was soundly upheld. Furthermore, if you take a look at WP:RNPOV you will see that mythology is specifically mentioned as an example of a term that has a certain scholarly meaning and "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view." We seem to be following policy to the letter here and claiming offense is not going to justify the change, that's just not how WP works. N^oformation ^Talk 22:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your quip that those who want myth in the article are intentionally trying to poke people is rude and uncalled for. Please keep your speculations as to the motives of other editors to yourself - it's not appropriate here. N^oformation ^Talk 22:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a quip, not an speculation, it was an observation and it was completely called-for.

Don't lecture me on assuming good faith unless you also lecture the comment to which I was responding which did the same thing in reverse. It's a huge double-standard that I've seen you and other editors impose on other editors here and you've got to stop being one-sided in your criticism.

The issue for me is not that the term is used, it's that no compromise can be reached to attempt to explain the it. So the fact still remains: those of you who are opposed to elaboration of the term are sticking their heads in the sand if you think that the vandalism and unconstructive edits will stop just because you think you're justified in your use of the bare term. The unconstructive edits won't stop and there will be debates like this until you realize that the position is unsustainable. It's easier to explain the term rather than force people to debate you here. Those unconstructive edits are just as much to blamed on those who hold to the term as it's currently used as those who actually make the edits. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been following this discussion much, so forgive me if this has already been said, but isn't explaining the term is exactly what wikilinks are for? - SudoGhost 01:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it actually did what we all assume it should do, then we wouldn't have editors coming to this page and changing only that term. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In short, it seems that there are editors here who are assuming that what's broken is other editors. That's not supported by the evidence. The other editors are not broken. The way that Wikipedia works is not broken--whether wikilinking or the ability for editors to edit (read: lock the article). What's broken is the way that phrase is being presented. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is presented in accordance with policy and that's what we're supposed to do. Secondly, people would change it without without a qualifier because people simply don't like seeing their religion treated as though it is the same as other religions. I've pointed out the relevant policies, sources have been well documented on this page supporting the use of the term, and that's all that really matters. N^oformation ^Talk 02:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summing up

Here's a summary of positions from most recent editors:

THE NOTE IS NOT NEEDED:

• Jess - "the note is unnecessary"
• FoxCE - "the current note is redundant"
• Obsidi♠n - "I do agree that the note is a bit unnecessary."
• Tom - "the note is redundant and unnecessary."
• St John Chrysostom - "If we're going to have a note (and this is one thing I actually did propose first, and was argued out of seeing the necessity of it above)..." (John goes on to say he's happy with the wording of the note as it stands, but this is about the very existence of the note, and he says he's been argued out of that position) - agreed. A dose of learning cured me of my push for further definition. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 18:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY STAND: (sorry guys, I couldn't find a pithy quote above)

• Walter Görlitz - (seems to lean towards the "not needed" camp)
• Theroadislong
• Eusebeus - "the note wording ("as used in britannica...") comes across to me (and probably me alone) as sounding amateurish, like the kind of thing one would find in a first year undergraduate essay" (Eusebeus is against the current wording, but I can't see any comment on the note in general).
• Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556

To sum up, the only enthusiastic, unequivocal supporter of the existence of the note is Zenkai - the rest of us, even those who proposed and supported the note, have been lukewarm. The lack of real support indicates that it should be dropped. PiCo (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that clarification of "myth" is needed for those unfamiliar with its academic use. The note was a good option, but far from ideal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a clarification of what is meant by "myth" is needed. A lot of people don't understand what "myth" means academically. A clarification is a necessity because the current wording confuses many readers. Zenkai _talk 16:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What we think is not important. Based on the edits made to the lede, I would argue one is necessary to avoid well-meaning edits that change the meaning. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a note, Wikipedia is a scholarly encyclopaedia and the creation myth article is perfectly clear on its meaning. We should assume a certain level of intelligence of our readersTheroadislong (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with intelligence or a lack thereof, it has to do with semantics and that argument requires intelligence to understand. We either completely lock the article so no one can edit it or editors will "fix" the article to "correct" the myth statement. In the brief time that I've been watching the page, that one statement has caused at least six edit wars. Why are a few "academics" digging their heels in instead of correcting an obvious problem in the most simple way? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because if we pandered to everyone and everything that someone somewhere might not understand, we'd need a shitload of notes. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a note isn't the best solution, but something has to be done to fix the lead. Zenkai _talk 18:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soooo, any ideas? Zenkai _talk 00:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think everyone is missing the obvious. If we don't explain it, the article will be "fixed" (read: vandalized) so that it makes sense. I fully understand what the term means. I disagree that this article should be for and by academics and we should write the article for everyone, not only academics. It's amazing that the other editors here don't understand that. So here's my idea: write to be understood by everyone, not only academic. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not difficult to click a blue link and read the next article. I'd go as far as to say that's one of the greatest parts about the Wiki interface. It's not that we write for academics, it's that we're a scholarly encyclopedia and thus use academic terms. Consensus has been strong to keep "myth" and I doubt consensus to change this will form anytime soon. I'm not adverse to other changes in the lede but I think it's time to drop the "myth" debate as it's been hashed and rehashed on many occasions with the same conclusions. N^oformation ^Talk 01:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing there to clarify the issue though. Sorry. I explained that a long time ago and it may have been missed. It simply explains the various creation myths, not what the term means. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this isn't about the "myth" debate. It's about the article's vandalism because of the "myth" of academic use superseding common usage. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for missing it. That, in and of itself is an issue. My proposed solution would be to write that into the Creation myth article (why it wouldn't be there now is beyond me). Regarding the vandalism, this is just something we have to deal with on WP. I think if myth were not in the lede we would find people adding it just as consistently as people remove it. N^oformation ^Talk 01:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait sorry I must be confused, the open to the article is "A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it." is that not clear enough or am I missing something here? N^oformation ^Talk 01:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not clear enough. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree but am not adverse to clarification if you think it's necessary. N^oformation ^Talk 01:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Noformation that it's clear. As I've said before, we get vandalism to change clear wording based on a common POV all the time, all over wikipedia. It's simply a part of editing an open encyclopedia. Check the archives for Talk:Atheism; their definition has been debated over and over again, so many times I no longer check the page. See the talk page for Mohammed; their use of images has been debated so many times they have a separate talk page just for that. We don't make changes to our articles due to vandalism. We make changes to our article when good sources are presented which conflict with our current wording. No such sources or arguments have been presented, so the wording need not be changed. If you have a proposal based on our current sources, please present it. Abstract notions that "the article should be changed so we won't have as much vandalism" are spurious.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK it's clear. Feel free to remove all future "corrections" to that section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the consensus, are the Berit Olam commentary by Cotter and the Old Testament Library Commentary by von Rad considered reliable? Keil and Delitzsche? (Link to Volume 1 of 10). And, St Augustine's writings on Genesis for a section, "Genesis in Theology"? And, the NICOT volumes on Genesis? Sadly, chapters 1-17 are not on Google Books: the latter part is, partially. Waltke? I'm assuming that Wenham is since he's already used. The above are generally moderate and conservative (that is, traditional in nature, to head off any misunderstanding after the massive argument about the use of the word "conservative" above) sources. I have no idea what constitutes a reliable Jewish source. Does the Gutnick edition of the Chumash? The Talmud and Midrash? Rashi? I have no interaction with any more recent Jewish commentators except for Sarna. I have been unable to find an Islamic source that can pass muster as even quasi-scholarly in either Arabic or in English, and there are few in any case (unless it has to do with the interaction of Genesis and the Koran).

I am working on a rewrite of vast tracts of the article, which I will post to talk here before making any changes. I'm trying to improve the prose (which is ghastly in many places) and give greater flesh to Genesis in theology, as it is essentially a religious document, and also to greater emphasis on the redaction and source criticism of the book from a moderate perspective (although I likely will include Westermannian views as well). So far, the article is essentially an introductory commentary to Genesis: it can be much more, as Wikipedia is not paper. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 07:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Cotter and Von Rad are RS - but be careful with Rad, given he wrote so long ago. In general, use the most recent sources you can find, and for the views of people like Augustine, use modern sources which discuss his views, rather than himself direct. (There's actually a book in the bibliography which does this - not used in the article.) Although Wikipedia is electrons, there is a suggestion somewhere in the policy that article length be kept to a certain limit. Dougweller would know more about that than I do. PiCo (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The high end for articles is usually 50-75k. See WP:Article size. There's a vector script to calculate it. The current page is 42k of prose (66k with refs).   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be wise then, to merely add section headers for some sections, and spin off something like "Genesis in Christian theology" (working title) in to a new article with the "see main article" markup, if my revision goes over say, 75-80k? Edit: that definitely will be needed, as I'm already at 131k in emacs. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 22:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, keep in mind the "prose count" excludes references, images, and other WP formatting, so emacs may be counting incorrectly. (Funny, I've written article content in vi before. Figured I was the only one.) Spinning new content into a separate article might be a good idea anyway. Just make sure the topic is notable in and of itself. In this case, it probably is, so that's a good idea.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its length would have to be in excess of 154,163 bytes (about 150 K), including all text, to make it onto the list of 1000 longest pages. We can worry about where to split if we get close to that, although the exegetical points seems like a good break. The concern is render time of the page and this page doesn't have a lot of tables or templates and so it loads quite quickly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page load time isn't the only concern. Read WP:Article size. Another issue is making the article readable, and a concise overview of the topic, without getting bogged down on specifics which could do better under another title. That's what "prose size" is important, without references or wiki markup. The article right now is manageable, but since we're talking about adding a significant amount of new content, a new article (with a summary here) sounds like it might be the best option.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I use emacs because, 1) I remember reading in some Obscure Guideline 573 (I'm one of those guys who try to read all of the Wikispace[?] guidelines/policies/essays, and still [inevitably] miss major blocks of them, as my years-long [I've been here as about two hundred IPs since most wikilinks were red] unawareness of the fact that there were any guidelines for userspace beyond "no copyright infringement") that one should not use MS notepad for some arcane technical reason; 2) it can be configured to look like wikiEd, 3) OpenOffice is extremely unwieldy, unoptimized, and inefficient for the purpose, and 4) because I hate vi (maybe because I can't operate it?). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 12:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-remainder

• 09:58, 14 February 2012‎ Telpardec (Not all italics for quotes, the Bible uses italics to indicate words added by translators - moved non-English jargon from quote - not 2 narratives, 2 accounts of creation narrative, general framework and special details - misc.copyedit)
• 10:33, 14 February 2012‎ PiCo (Undid revision 476807765 by Telpardec (talk)I don't disagree with all your edits, but I find this a bit sweeping. Can you do it more slowly?)

More slowly? Five hours for one edit is not exactly warp speed. (Weak grin :) Granted, the "misc.copyedit" at the end of the edit comment did not include reasons for the tweaks, but it was mostly addressing over-linking, (including multiple bibleref links to the 2 chapters already linked in headers), consistency between sections, terminology clarification and simplification where jargon is not needed. Added a (currently red-linked) wiki link for David M. Carr, shortened his verbose qualifications, and added a link to his bio at Union Theo/etc., with the citation reference at the end of sentence. Also added a better link to Google books with a partial quote that displays a blurb in the search results.
Any other concerns? —Telpardec  TALK  12:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One reason to do it in stages is so you can explain as you go along. I've reverted a paragraph where you in particular added 'special creatures as helpers'. It confused me and I suspect would confuse our readers as so far as I can see 'special creatures' is often used to refer to Adam & Eve, and it wasn't in the source either. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, Doug. Anyway, it is certain that the woman is special – all the other creatures, including the man, were made from dead dirt, but she was made from a live rib – the crowning act of creation. Stages? Hmmm... let me add a mental note to my collection of yellow sticky notes plastered around the inside of my empty skull... :)
—Telpardec  TALK  16:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Only the older English Bibles (being the KJV and DRC) use italics to (very inconsistently and with great editorial discretion) indicate words present in the translation which are not present in the original languages. The NASB and NKJV do as well, but no other widespread translation (i.e. not the NWT) does. I find italics are more often used now in the NT when it quotes from the OT, and in the OT not at all. What translation is being quoted from, that consistently uses italics to indicate English words not in the Hebrew? I hope that we're not quoting the KJV (although it's a fine translation): I default to the ESV for Wikipedia. It seems as if a somewhat literal modern translation is called for. I would use the NASB if it was more available online (the "bibleref" template returns an error when one uses "NASB"). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 12:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion.

Genesis 1:31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

Six days. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In six days He created, but the seventh day He rested; though one could say on the seventh day He created rest. Wekn reven 15:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Westminster Leningrad Codex (WLC)

31 וַיַּ֤רְא אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֔ה וְהִנֵּה־טֹ֖וב מְאֹ֑ד וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר יֹ֥ום הַשִּׁשִּֽׁי׃

1 וַיְכֻלּ֛וּ הַשָּׁמַ֥יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ וְכָל־צְבָאָֽם׃

2 וַיְכַ֤ל אֱלֹהִים֙ בַּיֹּ֣ום הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י מְלַאכְתֹּ֖ו אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֑ה וַיִּשְׁבֹּת֙ בַּיֹּ֣ום הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י מִכָּל־מְלַאכְתֹּ֖ו אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָֽׂה׃

The fact that the work was finished completed, etc. on the sixth day (2:1) means that all the work was completed by the end of the sixth. Don't just look at 2:2 since chapter and verse boundaries are arbitrary and the text is a continuous thought. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rest is not part of creation. It doesn't fit into the parallel of the first three and the second three days. And since scripture doesn't say that he created rest, saying that God created rest on day 7 is WP:OR. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Görlitz, that was a reply to the anonymous comment, not to your reply. It wasn't too serious either. I'm not even remotely suggesting that my OR be added to the article, so the comment was acceptable. Rest was not mentioned to have existed before the event, nor was it anywhere in the Scriptures mentioned that on that day He created rest. It was a matter of jest. This article is concerned with when His work was finished anyway, so I didn't expect to take this so seriously. By the way, I didn't actually look at 2:2. I just explained from memory. Matter of fact, Genesis 1:1 all the way up to about 6:8 are one "continuous thought". Wekn reven 16:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pure WP:OR. Rest was also not clearly stated as being created. It is not material and so it was not part of creation. I will be changing back unless you can provide a source that rest was created. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing back what??? I'm a little confused; I haven't edited this article for days! Wekn reven 18:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I get it! I thought the 'there seems to be a little confusion' part of your opening comment was by someone else, and that you replied. My mistake. Actually, I support your edit proposal. Go ahead and make the edit. Wekn reven 18:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made the change back to six, and the source doesn't have the word chaos in the referenced pages, but it heavily emphasizes the parallels between the first three and the next three days of creation. It points out that the seventh day is the odd one out and that creation is complete by the end of day six. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Ruiten reference, there is no "day zero" or "primeval chaos" (or "chaos") or "cosmic order" (or "cosmic" or "order") and nothing halfway close, so I removed the entire sentence. The alternate spelling "primaeval" appears in the book title and numerous pages as the phrase, "primaeval history", but no chaos. The rest of the paragraph appears to be a fair statement from the source.
—Telpardec  TALK  04:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I didn't see it listed either and if we're concerned with length, pruning WP:OR is a good place to start. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page 10 of the Ruiten reference has a table setting out the "framework" structure of Genesis 1. It begins with an "Introduction", then the two sets of three days beginning with Day 1 through to Day 6, and concluding with Day 7. In other words, the framework doesn't begin on day 1, but at a point before, Day Zero. Please restore the passage in the article, ok :) PiCo (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos isn't listed though. If we restore the phrase we need to select different wording. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Day Zero" in Ruiten's work, which is primarily an analysis of the book of Jubilees, compared with Genesis. ("The aim of this study is to investigate the way Genesis 1:1-11:19 was rewritten in the Book of Jubilees."--P. 5.) The page 10 table is a bare bones comparison of 8 highlights, with footnotes admitting the failure of items to directly correspond. (See also page 9 footnotes.) On the page 11 table, there is a blank cell at the beginning in the Genesis side, next to the Jubilees' "INTRODUCTION" section. Ruiten includes Gen.1:1-2 in the 2nd section next to the "FIRST DAY" section of Jubilees, although he still labels Gen.1:1-2 as "INTRODUCTION". A blank cell is not a zero "day". Bottom line: We can't restore the sentence with "different wording" using Ruiten as a source for "day zero" or "chaos" or "cosmic" anything.
—Telpardec  TALK  18:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz, you're right, and I'll try to find a different source, because it's quite important for the accuracy of our article - the framework structure, as the term is used by scholars, has the 6 days sandwiched between a "before" and "after", not beginning with day 1. —Telpardec, I don't have much time for Wikipedia these days, but I'll try to find a better source - maybe Walton, since he's something of a specialist in this area? PiCo (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why must certain editors here continually force wikipedia to endorse POV sources as if they were undisputed, unassailabe fact that nobody disagrees with? This is yet another example of intellectual dishonesty in this article. There needs to be a major arbitration on this article, because significant viewpoints as usual are being brushed aside as if some new information had supposedly come up settling the controversy, which it most certainly has not. Numerous editors coming here immediately notice that the article is a one sided propaganda vehicle and that it teaches a certain point of view as uncontroversial doctrine, but a small team of editors who proudly self identify themselves as atheist, routinely band together and drive all of the impartial editors out. I will fully support any moves made by anyone toward long needed arbitration of this article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide specific examples so that we may go over them one by one. It doesn't really help anyone to make a generalized complaint like this. Also, I don't think it's the arbitration committee's job to address issues like this.Farsight001 (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, Arbcom has no control over content or policy, they are enforcers of policy only in regards to editor behavior. N^oformation ^Talk 00:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on content and not on contributors. If something in the article is actually wrong then it does no service to your point to attempt to group editors into atheist vs. theist or any other system. N^oformation ^Talk 00:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also seen these same editors who self identify as atheist, more times than I care to recount, immediately label any arriving editor or even any published theologian who disagrees with their atheology, as "creationist" or worse, when they don't even self identify as such. They are the ones who group themselves, group others, this is just another case of being able to dish it out but not being able to take it in the least. Their circular reasoning litmus test for whether a source is reliable (i e if it holds the same point of view they accept) is unacceptable and making a mockery of calling this a "neutral" encyclopedia. That's why much more light desperately needs to be thrown on this backwards article, so that it doesn't just purport to "explain" theological matters from the POV of ONE side of the controversy, but rather ALL the sides without "playing favorites" as it does. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word "arbitration" (in English) is also a synonym for any sort of mediation process in general. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but we have specific uses of many terms here. You might be thinking of WP:DRN, but that would be a step to come only if discussion here cannot find consensus. There is also a mediation system, but no committee or set of users has anymore authority than any other, everything is done by WP:CONSENSUS here. N^oformation ^Talk 00:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider reviewing the options here (Wikipedia:Requesting dispute resolution), but it would help to outline your specific concerns before doing so. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 00:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being that vague and nonspecific is about as useful as having said nothing at all. This is nothing more than a rant; a venting of your frustrations. Outline your specific complaints, and we can go from there. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 00:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Fox, and the allcaps don't help much either. Eusebeus (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously characterizing the actual adherents of a religion in question as "impartial"? If they were we'd have various religious articles here vying with each other claiming each and every one of them is true. We do not count the number of adherents to satisfy WP:V, we wouldn't be much of an encyclopedia then, would we? We count the number of reliable sources. That's what prominence and notability means. Creationism has zero reliable sources that treat it as fact and thus must never be presented as such, though it can be treated in a scholarly and historical context.

A million believers still can not compare in terms of reliability to a single repeatable scientific experiment that refutes their conclusions. That is the most basic thing about NPOV. What you see as inequality is simply due weight.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the article we would expect to see if it were controlled by one of those regimes around the world that has a militant POLITICAL agenda to eliminate Biblical beliefs from the face of the Earth. What ever happened to NEUTRALITY? This article's "neutrality" is a CROCK, whom are you kidding? You don't get to declare that only YOUR school of thought on theology is determined correct and therefore every other source is "undue weight" no matter how many support it! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and so follows how mainstream science and history characterizes the topic based on the use of reliable sources. In this discussion you have presented zero reliable, secondary, independent sources. Neutrality does not mean that wikipedia must pretend that two different views have equal weight. Instead we aim to represent views fairly and proportionately WP:NPOV. A quote from WP:FRINGE: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea.. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this thread is conducive to improving the article in any way and it's starting to border on vitriol. I suggest archiving this thread and moving on people. Cheers, 58.111.81.178 (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Til, I am a very devout Christian and I believe the article is fine the way it is. Actually, I think it should use the word myth instead of narrative, to reflect the style of other articles on other religions' creation stories. It was religious people who campaigned and generally behaved exactly as you describe militant atheists behaving to get myth changed to narrative even though the proper definition of a myth does NOT mean untrue.

The point being that I, being a Christian, certainly don't want to eliminate biblical beliefs from the face of the Earth. As I asked above - please provide a specific example for improvement. We can't do anything with generalized accusations. Pick one issue, present it here, we'll go over it, and when we've come to an agreement on what to do with it, present another issue, and so on.Farsight001 (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Farsight does have a point as far as specification goes. However, I would like to ask a series of questions that all of us editors might be able to ask ourselves in the process of bettering this encyclopedia: Are the views of the authorities we appeal to accepted by a significant amount of experts in relative fields? Do the collective bearings of these authorities (esp. "majority authority") nullify or completely counter other views? Are the other views supported by a significant amount of credible, relative experts -- and what percentage of the field should they take up to be deemed significant enough to be considered with both critical and sympathetic ("neutral") points of view? On that point, how does the majority consensus bear on which one of these points of view should overweigh the other -- if any? Where is the boundary between powerful ("absolute") authority and significant speculation? How should we treat the "why" they arrived at their consensus? And most importantly, what is Wikipedia intended to be? Wekn reven 13:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve the article Wikipedia is not a forum Theroadislong (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If one wishes to improve the article, they must first improve themselves. I intended the above paragraph as a sort of, 'think about this before taking the discussion any further, then discuss'. Wekn reven 14:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until I'm done with my full rewrite and see how it is accepted. I believe it will still be too "atheistic" or liberal for the more die-hard Christians/Jews here, but I am attempting to expand and balance it a great deal (which is no easy task, trying to write and then passing it under my own scrutiny while alternating the Christian and Atheist glasses - I suppose I know how Chamberlain must have felt). I mainly began the rewrite with some attempt at balancing and removing some unreliable sources (i.e. Ellen Gould White), but much more so to improve the absolutely terrible lack of perspicuity and bad prose in the article as is - stylistic concerns, as it reads now (and I challenge anyone to disagree) as the result of the worst kind of design by committee. I will almost certainly be spinning off at least one other article, "Genesis in Christian Theology" (as I'm at 149k with refs, and I haven't finished referencing some statements - much of my style when writing is to write out of my knowledge, so it is well written in good prose, and then go back and reference my own work, finding the sources for that knowledge, and deleting that which I can't reference, and so on), which will deal with the religious aspects of the Genesis creation narrative, and, if space permits, the entire first eleven chapters and twenty-six verses of Genesis, commonly marked the "primordial history" in exegesis (but, beware, that all of the people quoted in the lead are believing Christian theologians, not Spongites, so if it's too "biased" for you, "Genesis in Christian Theology" probably will be too). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 23:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This project has also made me consider writing some other articles (if you look at my edits, I'm mainly a copy editor), dealing with "[Book X] in [X] Theology", such as "Gospel according to John in Christian Theology", "Apocalypse of John in Christian Theology", "Qur'an in Islamic Theology", etc. - something I am surprised Wikipedia doesn't already have, and which most definitely is distinct from the parent articles, and is not a POV-fork, as the topic of a certain book in a certain context is completely different from a description of the book itself: much like "Nineteen eighty-four", "Impact/Influence of GO's 1984", and "Literary criticism of GO's 1984" are, for example. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 23:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made this revert, which was then reverted again, so I wanted to come here and discuss it. The source given does not state that Sarna "believes" it, and a belief is not the same as a statement, so this edit summary is not correct, because it turns into speculation about what is believed, rather than what is stated. - SudoGhost 02:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Would "says" be better? Zenkai _talk 02:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He "notes" that the Israelites borrowed themes from the Mesopotamians? How would he know? Was he there?

It would be far more accurate if "notes" was changed to "believes" or "considers'. Thank you. Zenkai _talk 02:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How would you know that he "believes" it? See above, thank you. - SudoGhost 02:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But "note" implies that it is a fact. Which it is not. Zenkai _talk 02:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close. "Note" implies that they consider it a fact, not that it is one. - SudoGhost 02:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with SudoGhost here. "Notes" does not imply absolute factuality. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this context it's presented as if it were a fact. Zenkai _talk 02:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the section yet again, and to me it's presented as if it is academic consensus. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't read that way. Zenkai _talk 02:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, academic consensus is fact. If there are notable fringe views to the contrary of the academic consensus, then these can be discussed in the article but must be discussed very carefully in order to avoid giving them undue weight. The relegation of intelligent design and creationism to the "social and cultural responses" section of the evolution article is a good example of how to do this. 114.78.16.179 (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarna does not represent the academic consensus. That's beside my point anyway. Zenkai _talk 02:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]