Talk:Creation account(s) in Genesis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Issue: cheesedreams thinks that a page called creation accountS is more npov than a page called creation account(S), when the issue is whether there are one or two accounts in the passage. the page addresses both theories relatively evenhandedly ... but apparently differ from mr objectivity's pov.

  • Keep. So lemme get this straight. the opinion that there are two stories is NPOV, while the opinion that there is only one story is POV? meanwhile, evolutionISMISMISM is NPOV, while creationism is pov? cummon, dude. you make pat BUCHANAN look open-minded. you want parallel accounts, add them yourself. there weren't any, before. and i used RSV, which IS standard. who's watching who? Ungtss 21:37, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is listed for speedy deletion not votes for deletion, there is no need to write your vote, merely to explain why you have created this page.
The issue is that the current page happens to have a certain name. If you think this should be changed for NPOV reasons then say so on the articles talk page. Do not act unilaterally, and presume that your opinion is authoritative. CheeseDreams 21:52, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Slander (e.g. the pat BUCHANAN) comment is not considered acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia and may result in you and your IP address being banned from editing. CheeseDreams 21:52, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
P.s. I am in the UTC time zone and do not know who pat BUCHANAN is. CheeseDreams
now now. threats of stalking and intimidation(such as "i'm watching you") are not polite either. and as to pat buchanan, you're not missing much. do you really, honestly, in your heart, believe that a page that frames evolution as true and "mainstream" and creationism as false and "junk science" is npov? or a page that says "creation accounts" when the majority viewpoint among believers is that there is only one account? honestly? deep down? you really think you're right and everyone else is right only insofar as they agree with you? Ungtss 22:43, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"I'm watching you" is merely a statement of fact. I fail to see how it is a threat, as I have not mentioned "or I will.............". I certainly fail to see how it is an illigitimate threat. If you have some sort of issue with me, please discuss it on my talk page. This is the location for discussing the existance of this page. CheeseDreams 00:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The title of this page is "Creation account(s) in Genesis". I fail to see how it frames evolution as true and "mainstream" and creationism as false and "junk science". Or are you discussing this on the wrong page? Please use the correct talk pages for articles, otherwise people will not have the faitest idea what you are on about. CheeseDreams 00:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have never stated my POV with regard to the NPOV or not of "creation accounts". You have merely assumed one. This demonstrates you do not have a NPOV of me, or editing in the manner of which I use. CheeseDreams 00:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
By creating this page, and particularly by creating the original version of this page "Creation account in Genesis", you created an explicitely POV article. The article "Creation accounts in Genesis" is merely the long standing title of the page, and the section it was originally in. It is not created to be POV. In fact, I think the person who created the page from the section was actually a creationist, yet they chose to keep the title because it is long standing. CheeseDreams 00:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
By what basis do you claim to know the statistic "the majority of believers...."? I think a more factually accurate phrase would be "the majority of Christians neither have an opinion nor care". It is equally true that the majority of biblical scholars hold the view that there are at least 2 creation stories, in fact, many consider there to be rather more accounts (e.g. the story of the Nephalim, which the extant bible enigmatically cuts to one or two sentances, or the story (as reproduced in the psalms) of Behemoth and Leviathon (which in certain versions of the bible are transcribed as things like "monster" or "sea monster" or "beast", or simply surpressed) - there are extra-biblical sources for the missing details of these, or of Cain and Abel, who otherwise appear out of no-where in the plot and somehow have wives, or the (biblically surpressed) story of Lilith (whose name only survives at Isaiah 34:14)).CheeseDreams 00:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


because there are two POVs regarding the text in question: 1 asserts that there is one account, and 1 asserts that there are two accounts. previously, the page was called ACCOUNTS. it is now called ACCOUNT(S). it is clearly more npov. you are wrong, and i am going to put the page back up.

The question is Why did you add this page rather than simply suggest renaming the Creation accounts in Genesis page?
because, sir, i could not imagine anyone disputing the POV nature of the title as it stood, and i STILL can't imagine why you are disputing it now.
I am not disputing the article title, but rather the existance of this page. THIS PAGE, not the title of Creation accounts in Genesis.
Please also note that a discussion on page title changes requires at least 48 hours before acting on it, in order to allow interested parties in different time zones to comment and reach a concensus. CheeseDreams 00:28, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
okay, whatever. i've proposed it, so now hopefully everybody can agree and we'll move on. Ungtss 00:33, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Please note the following phrase from the "candidate for speedy deletion" notice on the article "but do not remove this notice from articles that you have created yourself." CheeseDreams 00:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

whatever, dude. we can keep mudslinging all night. you wanna fix this thing or not?

1) do you agree that "accounts" is more pov than "account(s)"? 2) do you agree that the text in the current "account(s)" is more npov?

I will discuss (1) only on the corresponding talk page, which is not this talk page. CheeseDreams 00:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(2) Producing a more NPOV article requires you to edit the original article, not a new one, so that people who are interested in the article can see the changes as you make them, edit them, and comment on them. CheeseDreams 00:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From main article page[edit]

This page has been created by an editor whose edits produce extremely POV articles. It is set up as an attack on the page Creation accounts in Genesis.

The existance of this page in opposition to that page is extremely POV. If the title needs changing, or the content needs changing, then the original article ought to be changed, after discussion on its talk page, NOT set up a rival page.

Please do not redirect this page. There isn't a page that links here, and no-one is going to search for the phrase with brackets.


I suggest everyone just cool their jets for a few days. If there is no system reason for immediate action, there is no hurry to act on this speedy deletion, is there? We can talk this through on Talk:Creation accounts in Genesis. This page was created because of those bold things that we all do as NewPersons. Let's not bite bold NewPersons to Wikipedia, please!  :)) Everythink is O K. And this inappropriate conversation on the MainPage will not offend readers, in my opinion--because the broken links to here have minimal impact on readers. ---Rednblu | Talk 02:46, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--- As can be seen on the Creation accounts in Genesis pages, there are two POVs represented: one asserts that there is only one account in the text; another asserts that there are two accounts. this page was created to change the title from the currently POV title "accounts" to the NPOV title, "account(s)," and to redirect both "account" and "accounts" to this newly titled and NPOV page, account(s). this is not a rival page, and was not created for any of the POV reasons asserted by Mr. Cheese. Ungtss 05:24, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)