" 

  

  

  

  

 == Requested move == 

 ===Suggestion 1: Creation according to Genesis=== 
  alternative move suggestion discussion started (see below).    
 [[:Genesis creation myth]] → Creation according to Genesis — The article was the most Stable under this name, Secondly if the first thing we have to say in the introduction is a defense of how ""it is neutral""; than odds are it is not neutral.    

 Notified Projects: Religion Atheism Christianity Judaism Islam Mythology Interfaith Admin Notice Board Bible 

 'In this Discussion Please dont use Straw man Arguments, they insult both the User writing them and the Users Reading them' 

 * Support The article was the most Stable under this name, Secondly if the first thing we have to say in the introduction is a defense of how ""it is neutral""; than odds are it is not neutral Current title seems to be a POV-push of how it is just myth; whether or not it is a myth or not in academia. It is unacetable to label something held as sacred to half the world (Jew+Christian+Muslim), This is not Censorship but common sense. The instability of This article since i think an acceptable middle ground would run something like 

 ""Creation according to Genesis refers to the text found in the opening two chapters of the book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible. This text has been identified as a creation myth by scholars,[1] and has religious significance for Christians and Jews."""" (AFA Prof suggest two months ago)    

 * OPPOSE ""Creation according to Genesis"" implies reality, it is inaccurate and in disharmony with other articles about other creation myths. This article is not religious propaganda. We have already discussed this at great length and we will not have a small minority of editors force their ideology down everybody's throats.  . 
 :: According to Genesis is just what it is. if people want to take Genesis and take it as literal fact that is their prerogative.    

 '' 

 ::: Cush, I think you're shying at shadows - does anyone think ""Creation according to the Rig Veda"" would imply acceptance of the Vedas as history or fact?    
 * Support - It's high time this POV-pushing sham of a title was put out of its misery and restored with something more sensible and less partisan. The current title was only chosen for the sake of its offensiveness value. I think the few editors who in