Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/EGMichaels

I submit that all of the following fiasco demonstrates that I am not the cause of this problem. I submit THIS ANI as its own evidence. Good shabbos, everyone.EGMichaels (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

more time than I care to count, though a quick review of his contributions to the talk page will find plenty of instances.

New threads, all within the last four days:

This first thread was in response to a Requested Move that failed to achieve consensus for a move, and is essentially the beginning of the perpetuation. Anyone that voted for the page move was notified by EGMichaels of a "new" discussion on his talk page: Templeknight Afaprof01 Grantmidnight Lisa Rossnixon Til Eulenspigel Swift as an Eagle Dweller Tonicthebrown Johnbod Bus stop Masterhomer Weaponbb7 Avraham. Inappropriate canvassing?

Examples of weird requests that are to be satisfied by other editors: [1] and his Second Choices thread. Apparently, not participating in that thread was evidence of acting in bad faith.

Divisive comments can be seen in the above list of thread titles alone, "Evolutionists Only, Please"??? He was also dead set on dividing people on for or against on a set of article titles for a while without due regard for arguments or policy, see his "table".

Edits to Wikipedia's guidelines that are related to his argument can be seen as dubious at best.

This has been going on for too long, many people have tried explaining to him that this needs to stop (see the

talk) 13:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The blatantly POV title of the article has been objected to by myself and literally scads of other concerned editors, but there's a powerful minority of partial editors that insists it's "neutral" to play Council of Nicea and declare which world beliefs are to be considered by everyone as "myths" - as if there were no argument or debate about the use of this word whatsoever in published literature, and all sources were supposedly in complete unison. This does't involve one editor, it involves the future and reputation of this project with millions of people, and what purpose wikipedia is to be used for - to tell both sides of a story, or to be one-sided. See User:Til Eulenspiegel/Religious narratives as sacred canon for a list of theologians that they have unilaterally deemed unreliable even for the purpose of establishig that any other POV exists. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would that Tillman and his POV-pushing crowd were only a myth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their next move, in the interest of truth-in-advertising, will be to push for "Wikipedia" to be renamed to "Atheistpedia". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I appriciate you taking the time to more or less discredit your own arguments with bad faith comments I'd like to direct you to the abundant policies / guidelines that support the article's current usage of "Creation myth" as a formal term as well as the RFC and RMs that have established and confirmed current consensus. Nefariousski (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for making a non-denial-denial, thus discrediting your own argument. You're hiding behind a technical definition for the purpose of alienating a large portion of the potential readership. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming bad faith, anyone? No matter how many times we point out that "creation myth" is a neutral term, used for many religious stories on Wikipedia, we are accused of POV pushing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that assuming someone is assuming bad faith is also an assumption of bad faith. Let's stop slinging around acronyms and discuss what we DO agree on so that we can figure out how to resolve the rest. I'm not sure people would have trouble with the use of "myth" in a neutral formal way, as I've demonstrated in discussion. The problem is that the content of the article and the title were worded very badly. I would point out that Allegorical interpretations of Genesis is a much better written (and titled) article, better researched and NPOV.EGMichaels (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of pushing this in to content dispute territory, I will point out for all outside editors that, under WP policy, the term "creation myth" has been shown to be the best title to use, neutral, and allowable. Relevant policies include

Talk:Genesis creation myth#Trying to use policy. Mildly Mad^T_C 14:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

That argument itself is a myth. What actually has been demonstrated is that POV-pushers can get their way, in violation of policy, if there are enough of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which argument are you saying is "myth" and who do you believe are the POV pushers? I'm afraid your comment was a bit too vague for me, sorry. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* I believe I made the best

WP:ARBCOM. Mildly Mad^T_C 14:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

What policy is being violated here? I'd love to know because no matter how many times I ask nobody thus far has been able to make a good case. Nefariousski (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous title was neutral. The current title pushes a particular POV. And here's a news flash: I also believe personally that much of the old testament is allegorical stories rather than factual truth. Guess what: I'm interested in the needs of the reader, not the need to push my own view on the matter. If the mythsters on here would take the same attitude, the old title would have stuck. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me why the Genesis story should get preferential treatment, when other creation stories on Wikipedia adhere to the "creation myth"

naming convention. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Please explain to me why the POV that Genesis is a fairy tale should get preferential treatment. And don't make the bogus "other stuff exists" argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bogus "other stuff exists" arguement.

WP:NOT#CENSORED and so on all support the usage of "Creation Myth", feel free to read the initial ANI post with all the policy points (link is at the top of this ANI) if you want to get some clarification. Nefariousski (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

In defense of Mildly Mad, he and I have pretty much been on two flaps of the same page here. He and I are the ONLY two editors who have shown any possibility of considering the other side's option for title. His first choice is "Genesis creation myth" and second choice is "Genesis creation story." My first and second are merely inverted from his -- but no other editor on either side of the discussion has even considered the other side. Had there been more examples of collaborative consideration like Mildly Mad on both sides, we wouldn't be bothering admins right now. He cannot be POV pushing if he is willing to discuss and consider other options (even if he prefers his own).EGMichaels (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not POV pushing when current usage is clearly supported by policy after policy, source after source and the only reason to even consider an alternative is because certain editors dont "like" the the term "Creation myth". In fact trying to enforce a change on the basis of "I don't like this" or "I feel that this offends my belief" is far closer to the realm of POV pushing. Nefariousski (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nef, a number of people pointing out problems with the article and title believe that the Genesis creation account is allegory/myth. The problem is that we cannot use the term "myth" to denote something "commonly believed but untrue." Further, "Genesis creation myth" presumes there are no other ways to see the first two chapters of Genesis, when there are at least three other articles that exist with different approaches: allegorical, framework, and creationism. NONE of those articles should be written in a way that presumes the myth approach does not exist. Neither should the myth article presume the others do not. Therefore we cannot have "Genesis creation allegory" or "Genesis creation framework" or "Genesis creation science" or "Genesis creation myth". ALL of those would be bad titles, regardless of POV, because they push POV instead of NPOV.EGMichaels (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their personal beliefs regarding Genesis are moot. I agree that we can't use "myth" in the informal sense but we don't. The title isn't "Genesis myth". "Myth" isn't used as a standalone anywhere in the article, it is always the proper noun and formal term "Creation myth" which has only one formal definition and absolutely ZERO informal definitions (yet again see electoral college not a school because it contains college example). Due diligence has been performed to explain context, definition, intent etc... Despite all of the strides taken to explain formal usage, define the term, explain that "Creation myth" is a distinct term that has its own definition unrelated to myriad of combinations of the definitions of "creation" and "myth", provide sourcing for said claims, comply with half a dozen policies we're still having this debate. Please let me be clear:

Creation (various definitions) + Myth (informal or colloquial) does not equal "Creation myth" so any arguements based on informal definitions of "myth" carry little weight
WP:NOT#CENSORED
Even the
Religion NPOV policy
states "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings"
WP:WTA#Myth and Legend
encourages us to use the term formally according to its use in reliable sources. Additionally, we are instructed to not use different terminology for different belief systems.
WP:UCN
tells us to strive for precision and as long as it is not arcane we should use the name that is most common in scientific journals, Media outlets, quality encyclopedias etc... A case for accuracy is also made stating "Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though it may be more common. For example, Tsunami is preferred over the more common, but less accurate Tidal wave."

Nothing proposed so far outweighs all of the above and frankly after all the research I've personally done during this debate I'm not sure a better alternative exists although I'm more than willing to consider any well thought out proposal. Nefariousski (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nef, as I've pointed out, there are only two ways of avoiding "commonly believed but untrue": 1) not commonly believed (i.e. not a living religion), or 2) not untrue (allegorical or symbolic, perhaps, but not necessarily true or untrue). The problem is not the concern that the reader will confuse the meaning, but that the editors are. Even on this ANI we see arguments to the effect of "until God comes down and tells me otherwise, it's a myth." There's only one way to take that use of "myth" -- he's not using it as a synonym for "symbolic" but in the prohibited use of "untrue." Although even religious sources will use the term "myth" for this narrative, they obviously do not mean "untrue" but rather "symbolic." "Symbolic" is neutral and could apply to something that is either true or not true. Imagine the contrast between "myths and religions." This falls under category 1 (above) a myth is not commonly believed while a religion is. A myth, then, is a dead religion. Or contrast "myths and facts" -- this violates category 2 (not untrue). Clearly in this context a "myth" is "false." I think that any source or sentence in which the term "myth" can be replaced with "symbol" is permitted under the Wikipedia guidelines. Any source or sentence in which the term "myth" can be replaced with "falsehood" is not permitted. If the article had been well written and researched, as is Allegorical interpretations of Genesis there would not have been this kind of a problem. I am not against precision or policy, but rather trying to get those using the term "myth" to follow it.EGMichaels (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the mentioned articles deal with interpretations of the narrative. "Genesis creation myth" presents the content of the narrative itself, i.e. the act of creation ascribed to Yhwh/Yeshua. And in a manner that allows comparisons with other traditions dealing with the origin of the world. · CUSH · 21:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh -- fair notice -- my wife is having a baby any time now. Could happen today or next week. No way to tell. So if I disappear for a while you can all smoke a cigar on my behalf.EGMichaels (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response by EGMichaels

What Ben is failing to show is that more people have been trying to get Ben to collaborate than there are trying to get me to stop. I was invited to review this article on the Judaism noticeboard and initially SUPPORTED Ben's chosen article title in an open dispute. After further review, however, I found that he was trying to use the article to push a rather limited POV that was not shared by a good half of the editors involved.

Since some of the editors appeared to be driven off and discussion was being suppressed on the talk page, I posted on the talk page an invitation for all interested parties to continue the discussion on my own talk page, and posted individual notes to all editors who appeared to be driven off, to attempt to reach a true consensus. This isn't canvassing since I invited both sides to participate -- repeatedly. Ben's refusal to participate doesn't translate into canvassing against him on my part. He simply chose not to work with the other side of the discussion toward consensus.

Since Ben and several other editors stated a refusal to either participate in collaboration on my talk page or consider anything that had been discussed there, I compressed the points that had been agreed to on my talk page to a table and presented it on the article talk page.

As I said, Ben fails to mention that I've been open to some version of his chosen title and his limited POV subject matter. He fails to mention that numerous editors have attempted to get him to collaborate toward a mutually satisfactory consensus, and that the admin closing the title RfC stated the SAME CONCLUSION that I did: neither side had a satisfactory title and needed to work together.

This Admin notice is simply an escalation of the same. Instead of trying to reach consensus, Ben is just trying to reduce the number of people who disagree with him from being able to participate. I invite any interested admin to thoroughly review the repeated appeals for collaboration rejected by Ben, and to review the quantity of editors attempting to reach consensus, and the willingness on my part to support some version of the article that Ben wants. A willingness he will not even discuss in a conciliatory manner. Rather, he prefers this. Please take the time to thoroughly review the discussion and encourage Ben to work WITH other editors, rather than against them. Thanks. Also, please send me a note for any specific examples you need if you have trouble doing a simple reading. I'd prefer a simple read through of the past week instead of getting lopsided examples from either of us, but if you do prefer the examples, I and others can provide them.EGMichaels (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've participated in an RFC and two RMs on that page. I personally invited you to add your opinion to the second RM. I've answered countless questions on that article's talk page before, during and long after the RFC and two RMs had closed. Accusing me of not collaborating seems way out of line. At best you can accuse me of not jumping through your hoops on your talk page.

talk) 14:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

By "not collaborating", I think he is referring to your position of "no compromise" - that no compromise or alternative to describing the Bible as a "myth" as prominently as possible, will ever be acceptable to you or a few others. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that alternatives have been rejected by the vast majority of editors so far is the motivation behind the suggestions, which all seek to get a title that implies truth for the content of Genesis. Since "creation myth" is the neutral and accurate term and is consistent with other articles, there is no need to change the title. But certain editors want a change due to personal convictions. · CUSH · 14:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(

most precise, consistent, and concise title possible, not because of some anti-Bible agenda. Mildly Mad^T_C 14:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

(

a naming convention on Wikipedia for other religion's creation stories. A few people, such as Til, continue to twist it around as if the argument is "Genesis = false" by ignoring this distinction, no matter how many times it has been pointed out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, I heard you just fine, I just don't believe what you are telling me. Users such as Cush and Science Apologist have repeatedly stated that they ARE arguing that the Bible is myth in that discussion (In contadiction to what you just said above about "nobody".) I'm going by published theological sources that firmly establish that there really is another significant POV on whether or not Genesis is a Creation Myth - not a bunch of one-sided policies written by the same self-described atheist editors - or didn't you hear that? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Cush and SA have personal beliefs against religion, but they never tried to argue for claiming "Genesis = myth" as part of the article. And this is

your hangup, where you refuse to listen when other editors say the term is still neutral, despite a few athiests who agree it's neutral. And the fact that people consider the story sacred canon does not detract from the fact it is still a creation myth, just like Mesoamerican creation myths and other articles on Wikipedia which use that naming convention. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Please don't assert some kind of false authority over your fellow editors by suggesting that I must "listen" to you. I do hear what you are saying - that you feel Genesis is an example of a "Creation Myth". I just will never accept this POV as "neutral", given all the published theological sources that disagree with you on that. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone cares (since my name is the subject here), I actually believe the Genesis creation story IS myth. That's right -- I actually AGREE with Ben!!! I'd just like to see both sides collaborate on a mutually satisfactory title, rather than one side run the other off.EGMichaels (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what EGMichaels is trying to accomplish at

Talk:Genesis creation myth, but this user's presence is definitely not helpful. I don't know if they are someone with a bizarre postmodernist creed, simply a troll, both, or something else that has a similar effect. But at an article that has just been under siege by creationists this user's communication style is disruptive. Hans Adler 14:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Admins -- as you can see, even those of us who agree can't seem to agree. Please just read through the talk page and my own talk page, and come to your own conclusion. Regardless of what you folks come up with, my presence will be disrupted by a baby pretty soon anyway :-)EGMichaels (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this ANI Posting is just becomeing a proxy for the actual article's never ending discussion and that it doesn't look like any uninvolved parties seem to want to participate is Arbcom next? Nefariousski (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Myth" is a neutral term ? I don't think so. Myth implies that it's untrue. "Story" or "Account" makes no claims being true or false, it's simply a story or account. Just my two cents.

_{Naluboutes,Nalubotes}^{Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris} 17:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. But they don't care. They want to bludgeon the wikipedia reader with the "truth", namely that Genesis is a fairy tale, and they're hiding behind one particular definition in order to accomplish that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 17:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(

talk) 17:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Can you please find an alternative definition of "Creation Myth" that implies "fairy tale" or any other falsehood? So far all we've been able to find is only one formal, neutral, definition that provides no value judgement one way or the other. You can't sperate all the words out and define them seperately The

WP:WTA#Myth and Legend. Nefariousski (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

It's simply false to pretend that all sources agree that Genesis is an example of a creation myth. Just in case you "didn't hear that", there is a whole page full of theologians who explicitly argue that Genesis is distinct from a Creation myth, and that the definition of Bultmann conceals an agenda. The whole skewed policy supporting "myth" as "neutral" (that btw was written by a select few, without general consensus) rests on a huge circular argument: "Our sources are the only right ones, because our sources say they are the only right ones." Sorry, but this is grossly unfair, and the theologians who have disagreed need to be taken into account since only one school of thought on mythology (Bultmanns) is endorsed by this POV title. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire page discusses "Myth" in its informal usage and doesn't once talk about the distinct term "Creation Myth", nothing your sources (biblical or otherwise) dispute the formal usage of the word "Myth". In essence your entire page supports what I've been saying all along. Informal use of "myth" is a big "no no" but formal use (as long as it's clearly established that it is being used formally and in proper context) is appropriate and supported by policy after policy and source after source. Watch someone use "myth" informally and see how fast I revert said usage. Nefariousski (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I read more of your sources it seems that they are clearly in favor of describing Genesis as a literal historical account. How does that make their critique of the word "myth" any more valid than the endless "I don't like it" type arguements that plague the article's talk page? Nefariousski (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If only wikipedia editors "didn't like it", and all the sources really were in unison, you'd be right. What they are is evidence of another Significant Point of View. And it's wrong to say that none of the sources on my page are discussing the formal use of "myth", "mythology", etc. In point of fact, most of them are discussing exactly that. To dismiss this as irrelevant to the use of the term "creation myth" seems like sophistry. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per your sources we shouldn't use the word "myth" because doing so puts us "right in the path of God's fiercest judgment. We know they are not myths because of the many references made to them by other Holy Bible writers, including the Lord Jesus himself..." How do you think this is a valid counterpoint to policy and academic/scholarly sources? Nefariousski (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I included all possible arguments on that page as evidence of a POV existing; only one source uses that argument and there are plenty of others. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went through some of his "collection" a while ago, but gave up when I started coming across stuff from Xulon Press.

talk) 18:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, every last one of those books is on GoogleBooks. I don't know of any that are on Xulon, which actually I've never heard of before now. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books is pretty indiscriminate and archives/scans/stores/whatever any books it gets its hands on, including stuff from XulonPress. That alone is a good enough reason not to trust Google hit counts.

talk) 19:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Sort of like Wikipedia. Several of those theologians who authored the quotes have linked articles here. But why should we discriminate? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that having a Wikipedia article just means they're notable, not that they are a

reliable source. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I've been dreading the day I'd have to do a point by point discussion on your little project but here goes:

Your Rajak source discusses informal use and suggests we "tread with care" which we've done (see citations, footnotes, FAQ etc...)

Your entire "New Testament Usage" section refers to informal usage of myth and it's from the primary source which we are discussing (not to mention the bible is hardly a reliable / neutral source in this discussion). Not to mention that you cherry pick the passages and take them out of context. They all basically "any belief that is not that of christianity is a myth" which is expected but totally moot considering the discussion is about formal usage.

The Quran's arabic word is a synonym for the informal use, and as such is apples and oranges as your own source clearly states in the second paragraph. This is english wikipedia and mistranslations / lack of formal / informal translations of myth in other languages isn't valid.

Paine's "attacks" were using informal derogatory usage which we do not use and in fact shun.

Reading further into Bultmann as opposed to cherry picking one sentence you'll see a clear case made for making clear seperation between perjorative usage of "myth" and formal, academic usage.

I don't have easy access or any prior knowledge of Boer so I'll leave this one for later

What point are you trying to make with the Ricker quote? He's simply stating that he doesn't believe in the biblical flood and then says that it is part of biblical mythology which is a perfectly true statement that is not used in a perjorative way (see

deluge myth

)

your Judaism views basically both say "Jews believe the hebrew bible is factual history". Thank you master of the obvious. What point are you trying to make here? Obviously writing the article here on WP as factual history isn't an acceptable alternative so what point are you trying to make?

Your Hamilton quote is the first good point your page makes. He says that people may assume usage of the word "myth" to be in a perjorative sense even if it is not meant to be and further says that there are conflicting definitions. Both of which I 100% agree with, but due diligence to avoid the first issue has been performed and because we use a proper term "Creation myth" that has only one definition the second point is moot. This would carry a lot more weight as a source if "myth" was being used as a standalone term.

Bultmann's second quote regarding Miegge's assumption of alterior motive assumes there's some grandiose conspiracy theory amongs academics, lexographers and so on to weasel acceptable usage out of the word and again the only alternative posited is the historical / factual views of the new testament.

The Wright quote starts out with weasel words and considering that he's a borderline apologist I'm not suprised. He also is referencing the informal usage of the term.

Packer is clearly in favor of "the bible as history" and says that we should use the bible as a primary source for it's own historicity.

Stahlin's essay says that any alternative aside from "Truth and reality" is inacceptable. We clearly can't write this article in terms of "truth and reality".

Hughes makes the same assertion and also clearly is using "myth" informally.

From what you write about Ramm it seems like he'd be happy with our hard work to give "Myth" a good name and unmuddy the waters.

Grelot's point supports biblical literalism and sets the bible above other "pagan" writings which we can't (and shouldn't) do.

Nwachukwu's quote boils down to "Since the Hebrew point of view is that Genesis is historical fact and not Mythology we should follow suit"

I'm not even going to bother with the "Bible Teacher's Commentary (for pastors)" quote...

Or the "Bible Knowledge Commentary" feel free to read my thoughts on "It's not myth because it's different from what the pagans believe" above

Barnett's assumption of Biblical Truth isn't a valid counter arguement to usage of "Myth".

Somers and Christmyer simply state "Bible is history and not myth" any reason why?

Bynoe (see above post)

Stocker's quote amounts to "The bible is true! it's not a lie! the bible says so!"

Greidanus makes a good case against using myth informally (defined as "a fabulous and untrue story") which I (and more or less everyone including policy) agree with yet doesn't discuss formal usage and furthermore argues that it can't be a myth because it demythologiezes other myths. {Not to mention I don't think "Preaching Christ from Genesis" makes for a very neutral reliable source)

The NLT Study Bible section basically says "Genesis isn't a myth because the God of Isreal is better than the pagan gods" and then further more favors factual literal history.

Brigham Young's quote amounts to "I think it is literally true, I don't think it is a myth" which would be expected for the head of a religion but doesn't amount to a whole lot in this case.

The whole Hinduism section either uses "Myth" informally or takes offense to it's use on the grounds of "What we believe is 100% true"

Ugh, i'm getting tired. the rest of it is just repetition of what is above. Pull out sources that discuss why it's bad to use "myth" informally, sources that support a literal historical fact and sources that just don't like it because it offends them and the page is more or less blank. Nefariousski (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, just put it back the way it was, with a neutral title and a neutral first sentence, with the "myth" stuff starting in the second sentence and discussed in great detail within the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will respond on my usertalk subpage if anyone wants to continue this discussion, and most of the really good quotes are in the secular section below where you got to, but I don't want to clog up ANI with this. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break, the TL;DR version

Hey, people talk about the creation myths of my religion all the time. You don't hear me complaining about it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you're reasonable, Elen.

The TL;DR version of the above debate is that EGM, while saying he agrees with "creation myth" for the article's title, still insists on asserting

WP:OWNership of the debate and keeping it going. He keeps trying to gain some nebulous compromise, but in doing so insists that editors jump through hoops to "prove" they are editing in good faith, and keeps trying to divide people into pro/con camps. I've exhausted my patience with him on this issue, and his continued stirring of the pot is just making things worse. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

As a side note, the article's Talk page is now over half-a-megabyte. I won't archive, to avoid "OMGCENSORSHIP!" drama, but I would welcome someone uninvolved doing so. It's becoming impossible for me to respond, due to the length of time my comp requires to load/reload the page for ever edit conflict. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what: You get us an interview with God himself and he tells us 'A-yup; that's the way it happened', and we'll drop the 'myth' part of it. Until then... HalfShadow 21:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Half -- thanks for giving us a clear picture of the problem at hand. Some editors have been arguing just in the way you have here, giving the "anti-myth" side every reason to complain that the article is not using the term in a neutral way. While POV is certainly welcome, we need to be certain that we are editing in a collaborative manner that allows input from multiple points of view. Such input would neutralize blatantly inflammatory wording. You are clearly not using the term "myth" as a synonym for "symbol" (i.e. in a formal sense) but rather as a synonym for "falsehood" (i.e. the informal sense).EGMichaels (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Half is setting a standard that is too high for wikipedia. We don't need an interview with God to establish that a significant POV exists among humans. We do have interviews with sovereign heads of state, etc. who indeed have said "A-yup, that's the way it happened." Other governments have disagreed, and there's been lots of propaganda on all sides - centuries' worth. That's exactly why we are bound to tell all sides of a story neutrally and not play favorites. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]