Wikipedia s Neutrality in Religion My understanding of Neutrality with respect to religion is that it means Wikipedia should not make any attempt to tell readers of any widespread religious persuasion that their beliefs are correct or incorrect true or false Neutrality to me means describing their beliefs impartially using language letting the readers decide what religion to follow if any instead of trying to decide for them or worse yet demonizing them for their beliefs Unfortunately there is a certain type of editor attracted to wikipedia that can never be satisfied with this understanding of neutrality They are never satisfied and strive relentlessly to make wikipedia correspond with their own view of reality or spirituality There are many competing views of reality in the world Islam Christianity Judaism Buddhism and Hinduism have all had official state approval in various countries not to mention China s current official view of reality Scientific Development Concept No two religions in the world have the same view of reality or spirituality and nobody yet to my knowledge has determined to everyone s satisfaction that his own view of reality and spirituality is what everyone else must be forced to subscribe to It seems trivial to point these facts out yet again despite the compromise on Genesis Creation Narrative leaving this compromise alone could never be good enough for editors who militantly feel that the article title needs to reflect their POV that Genesis is a MYTH and they are back now militating to abandon the previous compromise and retitle it Genesis Creation Myth to back up their POV No other word beside myth will ever be acceptable to them until Wikipedia officially declares that their POV is correct and Genesis is a MYTH and all other POVs are wrong Any amount of reliable sources demonstrating that MYTH has always been seen as a polemical and prejudiced term when applied to the Quran Bible Book of Mormon or Mahabharata etc are summarily dismissed by these bigots Because in their circular view only the sources that agree with their POV are correct and reliable and all sources no matter how prominent that suggest any other POV might exist on what myth means besides their POV are inadmissible to them says them This is the kind of orchestrated anti religious attack I see on Wikipedia that makes me want to throw up and never use it again