" 

  
 ::::I don't support the word ""myth"" in ANY title with the assumed meaning of ""falsehood.""  I use it for ease of reference with the understanding of a story with a metaphorical point.  Even true biographies can be given a ""mythic"" structure if they are constructed with details chosen to leave an intended response in the reader.  Normal English usage for Greek tales is ""myth.""  Normal English usage for Biblical tales ALLOWS ""myth"" but also allows the other optional title.  But Wikipedia cannot promote the conclusions of editors.  We report the conclusions of notable sources  PERIOD.  The use of the word ""myth"" for the expressed pupose of giving the editor's assumption of ""truth"" or ""falsehood"" is a clear violate of NPOV, and we cannot do this.  I do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, but I will not call it a ""myth"" if I merely mean, ""I don't believe in it.""  I WILL use the word ""myth"" in the structure of the gospel accounts, however, since they follow the same archetypal patterns of countless myths from around the world.  This isn't a sandbox where we insult each other, and insulting a reader isn't going to promote your article.  ""Creation account"" insults no one.  But you don't like that, it seems.  Perhaps you WANT to insult someone?  Do so elsewhere. 

 ::::In any case, the only COI here is your own.  You have a clear conflict of interest here, trying to use Wikipedia to determine your view of absolute truth.  Wikipedia is like FOXNews: ""we report; you decide.""  We report notable sources in a neutral manner, actively collaborating with editors who disagree to achieve that neutrality... and we let the reader decide.  "