Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:18, 1 December 2008

Template:ActiveDiscussMC Template:Talkheaderlong

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Noah's Ark. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Noah's Ark at the Reference desk.

	Noah's Ark is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 12, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bible This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Turkey This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mythology High‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

New section proposal

The following is my revised suggestion for a section entitled 'The Ark In Current Christian Interpretation'. It includes notable Biblical Literalist and Fundamentalist Interpretations, notable non-literalist and liberal interpretations, notable discussions over historicity, and the search for the Ark.

The Ark In Current Christian Interpretation

The Genesis Ark narrative continues to hold a significant place within the Christian community, though there exists a broad spectrum of interpretations of the narrative (from literal to allegorical), as with the Genesis creation account.

Biblical Literalist and Fundamentalist Interpretations

Biblical literalists and Fundamentalists tend to trust in traditions regarding the composition of the Bible and generally accept the traditional belief that the Ark narrative was written by Moses some time between the 16th century BC and late 13th century BC and describes a real event which took place in the 4th or 3rd millennium before Christ.

Biblical literalists explain apparent contradiction in the Ark narrative as the result of the stylistic conventions adopted by an ancient text: thus the confusion over whether Noah took seven pairs or only one pair of each clean animal into the Ark is explained as resulting from the author (Moses) first introducing the subject in general terms—seven pairs of clean animals—and then later, with much repetition, specifying that these animals entered the Ark in twos. Literalists see nothing puzzling in the reference to a raven flying over the Flood for two weeks—it could have rested on carrion floating on the waters—nor do they see any sign of alternative endings.

Liberal and Non-Fundamentalist Interpretations

Non-Fundamentalist and Liberal Christians typically view the Ark and flood narrative very differently to Biblical literalists and Fundamentalists. As early as the 19th century the view that the flood was merely local and did not cover the earth was well established within mainstream Christianity. This interpretation remains popular and important among more liberal Christians who retain a belief in the historicity of the Ark and the flood narrative as it is commonly used to explain how the Ark could have carried all the animal life necessary, and how it could have survived the flood itself.

Doublets and apparent contradictions in the text are typically explained by non-Fundamentalist Christians as the product of standard Hebrew literary forms., whilst the sending of the raven and dove are understood as historical references to authentic ancient nautical practice.

More liberal Christians such as the Universalist Church see the Ark narrative as essentially allegorical and non-historical.

Historicity

Apart from questions of date, authorship, and textual integrity, a number of subjects concerning the historicity of the Ark narrative are typically debated among Christians and skeptics. The following section sets out some of the more commonly discussed topics:

• Seaworthiness: Biblical literalist Websites seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m) long. This is considerably larger than the schooner Wyoming, at 329 feet the largest timber-hulled vessel built in modern times. The Wyoming and similar ships of her class suffered chronic leaking, warping, and hull separation due to hogging and sagging, despite reinforcement with iron bracing. "The construction and use histories of these ships indicated that they were already pushing or had exceeded the practical limits for the size of wooden ships". In response to the claim that the Ark had to be seaworthy, literalist websites cite various studies which, in their view, indicate that Noah's Ark was seaworthy, including a Korean paper demonstrating that the dimensions, shape, and structural materials of the Ark are realistic and that the Ark 'had a superior level of safety in high winds and waves compared with the other hull forms studied'. In this regard, some literalist apologists cite the Chinese Ming Dynasty 'Treasure ships', or 'baochuan' (the largest of which are claimed to be 400 to 600 ft long), as examples of large seagoing wooden vessels: however, the actual size of these ships is disputed, and one explanation for their size is that the largest Treasure Ships were merely used by the Emperor and imperial bureaucrats to travel along the relatively calm Yangtze river. Non-Fundamentalist apologists claim that the Flood was merely a local phenomenon confined to Mesopotamia, and hence the Ark would not have needed to survive wave action on a worldwide ocean.

• Practicality: Could the Ark have been contructed from timber as described in the Genesis narrative, and still supported its own weight?Were the technology and materials available to Noah to make the Ark's construction possible? Ark-believers claim that there is ample evidence for ancient timber vessels comparable in size and construction to the Ark: Sir Walter Raleigh was among the first to argue that the Ark was smaller than the Syracusia, a cargo ship built in the 3rd century BCE during the reign of Hiero II of Syracuse (180 feet in length), and the giant warship Tessarakonteres built by Ptolemy IV Philopater. The Tessarakonteres (420 feet long, and recognized as a historical vessel by standard historical authorities, remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Flood-apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals. Other ancient ships commonly used as points of comparison by modern Ark apologists are the giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut (206-311 ft), the Thalamegos (377 ft), Caligula's Giant Ship (341 ft), and Caligula's Nemi Ships (229 ft), the historicity of which is accepted by standard historical authorities.

• Capacity and logistics: According to Ark dimensions commonly accepted by Biblical literalists, the Ark would have had a gross volume of about 1.5 million cubic feet (40,000 m³), a displacement a little less than half that of the Titanic at about 22,000 tons, and total floor space of around 100,000 square feet (9,300 m²). The question of whether it could have carried two (or more) specimens of the various species (including those now extinct), plus food and fresh water, is a matter of much debate, even bitter dispute, between Biblical literalists and their opponents. While some Biblical literalists hold that the Ark could have held all known species, a more common position today is that the Ark contained "kinds" rather than species—for instance, a male and female of the cat "kind" rather than representatives of tigers, lions, cougars, etc. The many questions associated with a Biblical literalist interpretation include whether eight humans could have cared for the animals while also sailing the Ark, how the special dietary needs of some of the more exotic animals could have been catered for, how the creatures could have been prevented from preying on each other, questions of lighting, ventilation, and temperature control, hibernation, the survival and germination of seeds, the position of freshwater and saltwater fish, the question of what the animals would have eaten immediately after leaving the Ark, how they traveled (or were gathered) from all over the world to board the Ark and how they could have returned to their far-flung habitats across the Earth's bare, flood-devastated terrain, and how two or a few members of a species could have provided enough genetic variety to avoid inbreeding and reconstitute a healthy population. The numerous Biblical literalist websites, while agreeing that none of these problems is insurmountable, give varying answers on how to resolve them.

References

1. Literalists and Fundamentalists rely on the internal biblical chronology to count backwards from the relatively secure dates in the historical books (largely the book of Kings, where events such as the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians can be verified from non-biblical sources) to the genealogies contained in Genesis 5 and 11. Archbishop Ussher, using this method in the 17th century, arrived at 2349 BC, and this date still has acceptance among many. A more recent Christian fundamentalist scholar, Gerhard F. Hasel, summarising the current state of thought in the light of the various Biblical manuscripts (the Masoretic text in Hebrew, various manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint), and differences of opinion over their correct interpretation, demonstrated that this method of analysis can date the flood only within a range between 3402 and 2462 BC.Hasel, GF (1980). "THE MEANING OF THE CHRONOGENEALOGIES OF GENESIS 5 AND 11". Origins. 7 (2): 53–70. Retrieved 2007-06-27. Non-Fundamentalist, non-literalist and liberal Christian opinions, based on different sources and methodologies, lead to dates outside even this bracket—the deuterocanonical Book of Jubilees, for example, providing a date equivalent to 2309 BC.
2. Several Creationist websites give encyclopedic answers to the many questions asked about the Ark: see, for example, Trueorigin.org, "Problems with a Global Flood?", and links in the See Also section of this article.
3. 'Notwithstanding diligent search, I have been unable to discover that the universality of the Deluge has any defender left, at least among those who have so far mastered the rudiments of natural knowledge as to be able to appreciate the weight of evidence against it. For example, when I turned to the "Speaker's Bible," published under the sanction of high Anglican authority, I found the following judicial and judicious deliverance, the skilful wording of which may adorn, but does not hide, the completeness of the surrender of the old teaching', Thomas Huxley, 'The Lights of the Church and the Light of Science', Collected Essays, volume 4, pages 217-218 (1890)
4. Hugh Ross, The Waters Of The Flood'
5. Rich Deem, 'The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local'
6. 'The Genesis Flood'
7. 'So, the animal species rescued via the ark were nephesh, particularly those in the category of basar, living within the reach of the flood's devastation. They may have numbered in the hundreds and probably did not exceed a few thousand. The ark, then, would have been adequate to house them and their food, and eight people could have cared for them, as well as for themselves, for many months', Hugh Ross, Let Us Reason: Noah's Floating Zoo
8. The Genesis Flood
9. MacGrath, James F, Introduction To The Torah'
10. Kitchen, Kenneth, 'The Old Testament in its Context: 1 From the Origins to the Eve of the Exodus', Theological Students' Fellowship Bulletin 59, Spring 1971
11. Bromiley, Geoffrey W (editor), International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised edition, Eerdmans:1979
12. Keener, Craig S (editor), The Bible Background Commentary-NT, International Varsity Press:1993
13. Marcus, David, 'The Mission of The Raven (Gen. 8:7)', Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society, 29:2002
14. Reverend Kathleen McTigue, 'Noah's Ark For Grownups', February 23, 2003
15. How BIG was Noah's Ark?
16. Noah's Ark
17. Isaak, Mark, 'Problems with a Global Flood', second edition, 1998
18. Gould, R (2001). "Asia's Undersea Archeology". Public Broadcasting System. Retrieved 2007-06-27.
19. Yes, Noah did build an Ark!
20. S.W. Hong, S.S. Na, B.S. Hyun, S.Y. Hong, D.S. Gong, K.J. Kang, S.H. Suh, K.H. Lee, and Y.G. Je, 'Safety Investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway', Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 8(1):26–35, 1994
21. NOAH'S ARK SAFETY PAPER
22. Ark
23. Compare Noah's Ark
24. CH508: Chinese treasure ships and Noah's ark
25. Ancient Chinese Explorers, Evan Hadingham, Sultan's Lost Treasures, NOVA, PBS Television
26. Asia's Undersea Archeology, Richard Gould, NOVA, PBS Television article
27. [http://www.travel-silkroad.com/english/marine/ZhengHe.htm The Archaeological Researches into Zheng He's Treasure Ships
28. The Genesis Flood
29. Did Noah Really Build An Ark? 'It would have been about 450ft long, and experts say it would have broken apart'
30. Noah's Ark 'the odds are that the technology of the time and the reputed material (gopher wood or shittim wood = ?acacia) would have made such a structure too flimsy for the purpose'
31. The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark, 'Many writers (e.g., Kenneth Feder, Frauds, Myths, and Mysticism, Mayfield, 1990) point out that the construction of the Ark, given the conditions stated in the Bible, would probably have been impossible'
32. The large ships of antiquity
33. 'For measuring the ark by the vulgar cubit, it did not exceed the capacity of that vessel built by Hiero of Syracuse, or the ship of Ptolemy Philo-pater', Raleigh, Sir Walter, 'The History of the World', Book 1, in 'The Works of Sir Walter Ralegh, Kt', volume II, 1829, page 213
34. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Lionel Casson 1994
35. The Age of the Supergalleys, Chapter 7 of Ships and Seafaring in Ancient Times, Lionel Casson, University of Texas Press; 1st University edition, March 1994 ISBN-10: 029271162X.
36. 'Ancient History boasts of many large vessels, which prove the possibility of the size of Noah's Ark… PLUTARCH, in his life of DEMETRIUS, relates that PTOLOMEY PHILOPATER constructed a galley, of the same length, with forty ranges or heights of oars, navigated by four hundred sailors, and four thousand galley slaves, which could contain three thousand fighting men on its decks', Radford, William, 'On the construction of the Ark, as adapted to the naval architecture of the present day, &c.', 1840, pages 21-22
37. 'Mr. A. HENDERSON has communicated to the Institution of Civil Engineers a paper on "Ocean Steamers," wherein he made some calculations respecting the comparative bulk of the most famous vessels of antiquity and of our own times. Thus, a ship constructed by Ptolemus Philopater was 420 feet long, 56 broad, and 72 high from the keel to the prow, and it was manned by 4000 rowers, 400 servants, and 2820 marines. It was estimated, therefore, that this vessel had a tonnage of 6445 tons, builder's measurement, and an external bulk of 830,700 cubic feet. Noah's ark would have a tonnage of 11,905, and a bulk of 1,580,000 cubic feet', Timbs, John, 'The Year-book of Facts in Science and Art', 1854, page 42
38. Van Rensselaer, Cortlandt (editor), 'A ship was constructed for Ptolemy Philopater, which was 420 feet long, 56 feet broad, and 72 feet deep, and of 6,445 tons burthen', The Presbyterian Magazine, volume IV, 1854, page 93
39. 'Very large vessels — their seaworthiness.', 'By old law, the tonnage of Noah's Ark was 11,905 tons, and calculated on this estimate, her external bulk would be about 1,580,277 cubic feet ; the ship built 2000 years ago at Alexandria, by Ptolemaens Philopater, 6445 tons', Report Of The Twenty-Fourth Meeting Of The British Association For The Advancement Of Science', 1855, page 154
40. Impossible For Ancients
41. The Genesis Flood
42. 'It is estimated that the obelisk barge may have been over ninety-five metres in length and thirty-two metres wide', Technology along the Nile
43. ' was over 300 feet long, Casson, Lionel, 'Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World', 1995, page 342
44. 'Athenaios does not indicate his sources for the second ship, but it must have been an eye-witness or a person who obtained measurements and other details from a contemporary', Sarton, George, 'Hellenistic Science and Culture in the Last Three Centuries B.C.', 1993, page 121
45. 'Similar techniques were used in the gigantic Lake Nemi ships of the early first century AD', McGrail, Sean, 'Boats of the World: From the Stone Age to Medieval Times', 2004, page 157
46. 'Archaeology Italian archaeologists and engineers drain Lake Nemi near Rome to recover two giant barges that had been built by Roman emperor Caligula', Bunch, Bryan and Hellemans, Alexander, 'The History of Science and Technology', 2004, page 513
47. 'Atop one of these was erected a lighthouse that used as its foundation the giant ship that had been built to transport the obelisk of Heliopolis from Egypt to Rome under the reign of Caligula', Aldrete, Gregory, 'Daily Life in the Roman City: Rome, Pompeii, and Ostia', 2004, page 206
48. Mendez, AC. "How Big was Noah's Ark". biblestudy.org. Retrieved 2007-06-27. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
49. Sarfati, J (2007). "Variation and natural selection versus evolution". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 2007-06-27. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

Propose rename: The story of Noah's Ark (with redirects from Noah's ark, Noah's flood etc)

Since this article is artificially drawn along people saying "it's just about the ark" who keep chopping out information relating to the overall concept I propose (since there is no sensible way to separate out the ark from the story. The ark only exists (as far as can be determined) as described in the story. It has no purpose for existing except within the context of a story about a flood. Check the current article: some things (namely any scientific references that refute the whole story) keep getting removed citing "this is the ark not the story", but the lead is all about the story of Noah. Does anyone have any objections? I think this will stop the bickering about what is in context and what isn't (but has no where to go if not in this article) and makes the title consistent with the content (which is about the story, including the ark, the flood etc).

Currently we have an article which is about the story but some people say it is just about the physical ark itself (but the content says otherwise as it details out the story in the lead, and again in another section), there's a section on the search for the ark, interpretations of the story over the ages. It's akin to having an article about the loaves and fishes from the story of Jesus and the loaves and fishes. Or the rock that david felled goliath with.

I think people (and this is reflected in articles about Noah's ark) refer to the whole thing: story, ark, flood. There's really no point saying this article is about "just the ark" as it is meaningless without Noah, a flood, a bunch of animals and a wrathful god.

Note: this does not mean duplication of the material in:

• Deluge (mythology) or that article is still about a class of story (of which this story is just one of)
• articles on the bible/qur'an/torah and genesis

Thoughts welcome. NathanLee (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively: we just all agree that this article is (as it says "This article is about the vessel and the Flood narrative described in Genesis") about the story and chopping out material citing "this is about the ark, not the story" is not allowed. NathanLee (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The only one bickering here is you. No one has argued for a notion that 'there's an ark without the background story of flood, animals, vengeful god'. All of that background receives due weight in the article. Have you even read the article? What I and others have objected to us giving undue weight to these issues. See WP:COAT and WP:WEIGHT. There are already plenty of scientific arguments in this article which have been raised against the Ark, and a number of scientific arguments against the flood being global have also been included in this article, in the correct place, and given the correct weight. So what exactly are you complaining about? --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you not read what you write. I believe you've specifically said "this is about the ark, not the story" or words along those lines. You object to this being identified as completely unscientific. The repeated removal of references to articles that state that this story of a global flood that specifically mention the story of Noah: and you chop them out, time and time again. There's no undue weight when the sentence is "this has been rejected by science", but you've chopped it out. Why? Is this article about the story of Noah now in your eyes? Because you were using "this is about the ark, not the story" as a reason for your edits previously. NathanLee (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not objected to this story being identified as completely unscientific. Indeed, I have included a number of links which say exactly that. As I said, there are already plenty of scientific arguments in this article which have been raised against the Ark, and a number of scientific arguments against the flood being global have also been included in this article, in the correct place, and given the correct weight. I know, because I put most of them there. I know more about this subject than anyone else who edits this article, I have contributed more reliable sources to this article than any other editor, and I am the one who has been responsible for maintaining the correct balance of this article against the rabid atheists on the one side and the rabid Fundamentalists on the other side.

What I said is that this article is about the Ark, not the flood narrative. That means that any discussion of the flood must receive due weight, and no more. What I and others have objected to us giving undue weight to these issues. See WP:COAT and WP:WEIGHT. If you look at the section 'The Ark in post-Renaissance scholarship', you'll find that it's almost entirely about scientific objections to the flood narrative, which is more than enough mention of the flood in an article on the Ark.

This is what is in there at present (not including the links I put in which say the Ark and flood are both unscientific):

• 'By the 19th century, the discoveries of geologists, archaeologists and biblical scholars had led most scientists and many Christians to abandon a literal interpretation of the Ark story,'
• 'By the 17th century, it was becoming necessary to reconcile the exploration of the New World and increased awareness of the global distribution of species with the older belief that all life had sprung from a single point of origin on the slopes of Mount Ararat.'
• 'Incorporating the full range of animal diversity into the Ark story was becoming increasingly difficult, and by the middle of the 18th century few natural historians could justify a literal interpretation of the Noah's Ark narrative.'
• 'Scientific geology had a profound impact on attitudes towards the Biblical Flood and Ark story: without the support of the Biblical chronology, which placed the Creation and the Flood and Ark very precisely in history, the historicity of the Ark itself was undermined.'
• 'As early as the 19th century the view that the flood was merely local and did not cover the earth was well established within mainstream Christianity.'

So again, what exactly is your objection? --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

God, grieved and pained

A recent edit has rightly corrected the completely inaccurate statement that God was 'angered', and replaced with with 'God, grieved and pained'. However, given that this is a direct quote from a particular English translation of the Bible, it may be worth placing this in quote marks and indicating the source of this specific wording. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, various English translations all tend to rewrite the text with different slight nuances, so when in doubt, go to the original... My copy of the Masoretic Hebrew 6:6 says : "WeyinaHes YHWH ki-`asah 'et-ha'Adam ba'arets, wayit`atseb 'el-libo". (Sorry if you don't like my transliterating skills!) I would render that literally, word-for-word as something like: "And YHWH regretted because He made the man on Earth, and He was grieved / saddened in His Heart." Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I like your edit, thanks. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Which "original" is this? As far as I'm aware there is no "original" text to go from. We could look at the stories from which this story was derived from if you want "original" of sorts, but flood stories are a dime a dozen. NathanLee (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The term 'original' is being used to refer to the Hebrew source text of the Old Testament. It is not being used to refer to an 'original' flood story in the sense of 'the first' flood story. The term 'original text' is commonly used as a reference to the Hebrew and Greek source texts of the Old and New Testaments respectively (even though strictly speaking the 'original text' no longer exists). He is referring specifically to the Masoretic text (as in fact he said). --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

References

NathanLee, you replaced a couple of references. It might have been a good idea to check the first. Here's the statement in the article to which those references were attached:

• 'By the 19th century, the discoveries of geologists, archaeologists and biblical scholars had led most scientists and many Christians to abandon a literal interpretation of the Ark story,'

What we need here are references which provide evidence that the discoveries of geologists, archaeologists and biblical scholars had led most scientists to abandon a literal interpretation of the Ark story. The article from the BBC (which I actually included later in the article), does not say anything about this. It doesn't say anything about the 19th century at all. It is not a valid reference for this sentence. It is valid for a sentence in the article which comments on contemporary scientific skepticism concerning the Ark, and in fact I already included the link in such a section later in the article (Did Noah Really Build An Ark? 'It would have been about 450ft long, and experts say it would have broken apart'). Plimer's book may state or provide evidence that the discoveries of geologists, archaeologists and biblical scholars had led most scientists to abandon a literal interpretation of the Ark story, but no page reference is given so it's not easy to verify this (and I don't have a copy of the book). Can you confirm that Plimer's book states or provides evidence that the discoveries of geologists, archaeologists and biblical scholars had led most scientists to abandon a literal interpretation of the Ark story? If not, then the reference is not valid. Janet Browne's book is likely to make such a statement or provide such evidence, but I can't confirm that it does. Can anyone else? The article by Davies certainly does make such a statement and provides such evidence, so I have included it. Please people, read references before you include them. This is a very basic rule of editing. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The lead is meant to summarise the rest of the article. Extra references don't hurt. Why do you have a problem with the scientific view that this story is pure fiction and could not have happened.

The part about the 19th century is purely linked in with it because you keep removing the reference to the current state of science on the matter as "too much". Are you happy to let me put back in the earlier wording that modern science completely refutes the story? Make up your mind what your disagreement is and stick to it. Now it's because the mention of the 19th century. Earlier placement of that reference was just to state what science thought of the matter, but you objected to that as I recall. If you'd leave it how it has been in there numerous times before as simply a statement that science today disproves the whole story: you'd not be making this latest of argument to prevent the view that this story is not at all factual.

The reference you removed was from the BBC, titled "Did Noah really build an ark?". It states in it: "And a flood that engulfed the Earth would have left a signature for geologists - yet none has been found. " and "Geologists have also proved that there is not enough water in the world to cover all the continents, then or now. "

It is a relevant reference if you'd just let the voice of science get a say without constantly trying to minimise that significant view. NathanLee (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I know what the reference I removed is, I am the one who found it in the first place. I placed it in the article in an appropriate place, months ago. I removed it from where you put it, because it was not relevant to the 19th century. You have to include appropriate references. I objected to your previous use of it because it was being used to refer to the flood, not the Ark. I have not objected to the reference as long as it is used properly. I myself found that reference months ago, and I'm the one who placed it in the article in the correct place. I even provide a quote from it in the references. You keep trying to change this article to a flood article, when it is actually about the Ark. I have already demonstrated to you that there is sufficient reference to and discussion of the flood in this article. As for me not letting 'the voice of science have a say', you clearly haven't read the sentence which says that by the 19th century 'the discoveries of geologists, archaeologists and biblical scholars had led most scientists and many Christians to abandon a literal interpretation of the Ark story'. What do you think that is saying? It's saying that from that time until now, most scientists do not accept a literal interpretation of the Ark story. Please also note the references which I have included from the position of modern science (not just 19th century science). —Taiwan boi (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Have added a separate sentence which mentions geology specifically, is not linked to the 19th century, and clearly states the position of modern geology. Hope that will suffice. NathanLee (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If you provided a reference which mentions the position of modern geology on the Ark, it would be relevant. But you keep trying to drag the flood in here. That isn't relevant, especially in the lede of this article. Why don't you just go over to the Deluge article, which you can fill with all the science references you want? Why do you keep trying to drag this article off topic? For the record, I'm entirely in agreement with you that there was no global flood, since all available scientific evidence contradicts it, but the subject of this article is the Ark not the flood. —Taiwan boi (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If an article is about the story of the ark and it happens to poke holes in it because a key element of the story cannot be true: that IS relevant. LOOK at the article, or just read the title if you can't take the time to think about it. You can't have the ark without the flood, that's logical. If this article is about a story, that science says is not factual: stop having issues with a sentence that states that. Stop trying to say "this article isn't about the flood": the flood is a key element, it isn't taking it off topic to simply and succinctly state in the lead that this story cannot be true as per science. That article does state the position on geology about the story of noah's ark: that it did not happen for numerous reasons. The other reference has tonnes of other reasons. I mean how much more about Noah's ark can an article titled that way be? Perhaps we should chop out the mention of the history of church thought on the story: because we have a page on the bible: you can fill that up with all the history of the church/theology you like. It doesn't belong here! Nor does the search for the ark stuff, we have a page on "wild goose chases" or similar. The view of science about this story should be attached to the story. You're arguing about one simple sentence that makes that clear. The nature of the story, as according to science, is that it is fictional. Simple. NathanLee (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have explained this to you before:

• You used the reference with a sentence to which it did not belong
• I have no issues with a sentence that says 'science' says this story is 'not factual', I have included such a sentence (twice), with a number of references. The 'view of science' about this story is well represented in the article
• This article is about the Ark, not the flood narrative. This does not mean the flood cannot be referred to in the article. The flood is referred to in the article. If you look at the section 'The Ark in post-Renaissance scholarship', you'll find that it's almost entirely about scientific objections to the flood narrative, which is more than enough mention of the flood in an article on the Ark.

This is what is in there at present (not including the links I put in which say the Ark and flood are both unscientific):

• 'By the 19th century, the discoveries of geologists, archaeologists and biblical scholars had led most scientists and many Christians to abandon a literal interpretation of the Ark story,'
• 'By the 17th century, it was becoming necessary to reconcile the exploration of the New World and increased awareness of the global distribution of species with the older belief that all life had sprung from a single point of origin on the slopes of Mount Ararat.'
• 'Incorporating the full range of animal diversity into the Ark story was becoming increasingly difficult, and by the middle of the 18th century few natural historians could justify a literal interpretation of the Noah's Ark narrative.'
• 'Scientific geology had a profound impact on attitudes towards the Biblical Flood and Ark story: without the support of the Biblical chronology, which placed the Creation and the Flood and Ark very precisely in history, the historicity of the Ark itself was undermined.'
• 'As early as the 19th century the view that the flood was merely local and did not cover the earth was well established within mainstream Christianity.'

• Likewise, I have never argued for a notion that 'there's an ark without the background story of flood, animals, vengeful god'. All of that background receives due weight in the article. What I and others have objected to us giving undue weight to these issues. See WP:COAT and WP:WEIGHT

Furthermore, if you actually read the BBC article you will find to your surprise that whilst it argues the Genesis flood narrative is a myth, it claims that the Genesis flood narrative is based on fact. It claims there was a Noah, he built a barge, there was a flood, and he did take animals on board. This is hilarious, given that you claim 'The nature of this story, as according to sciene, is that it is fictional'. According to the BBC article, the nature of this story, 'as according to science' is that it is based on fact. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(indent) I'll make it simpler: the article referenced (one of two actually) is titled with direct reference to this article's topic. The BBC article explores whether the story (of which this article is about) could be true or not. For you to make the determination that because those reasons are about something that there is a another topic (global flood mythology.. although we can't describe this particular one as mythology either because some people can't accept their faith has mythology in it) you regard it as unsuitable for inclusion in this article. So because flat earth theory is disproved by satellite photos or ships sailing around the curve of the Earth: but we have topics on those so they couldn't be included in an article on flat Earth theory. THIS IDEA IS RIDICULOUS and one might fairly think nothing more than an attempt to make this appear more factual than it is. NathanLee (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You are still not reading what I write. I have not said that we cannot have references to the flood in this article just because we already have an article on the flood. There is already plenty of material in this article which is specifically on the flood. Let me say that again. There is already plenty of material in this article which is specifically on the flood. Not only that, but all of the material in this article which is on the flood declares explicitly on scientific grounds that a global flood never took place. I am responsible for a number of those very statements in the article. I will keep saying this until you understand it.

The BBC article discusses whether or not the flood was global, and whether or not the Ark was feasible. I have already cited and quoted the BBC article in this article, in the section discussing the feasibility of the Ark. I have quoted from the BBC article directly saying 'It would have been about 450ft long, and experts say it would have broken apart'. You tried to use the BBC article as a reference for how 'By the 19th century, the discoveries of geologists, archaeologists and biblical scholars had led most scientists' had abandoned a literal interpretation of the Ark story. But the article contained no such statement, even though that is a fact (a fact for which I provided a proper reference). You were misusing the BBC article. I have used it correctly later in the Ark article.

As I have already demonstrated more than once, If you look at the section 'The Ark in post-Renaissance scholarship', you'll find that it's almost entirely about scientific objections to the flood, which is more than enough mention of the flood in an article on the Ark. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest: Christian Skeptic

As I have had an edit removed out of the article by a self confessed publisher of creation journal entries. If someone could put it back as I do not wish to violate 3RR even though this user has a clear conflict of interest and some fringe theories that they appear to want edit into wikipedia. The edit I made was to fit the above discussion. This user also appears to regard the BBC as not a referenceable organisation because they have (claimed) "a clear anti-christian bias", the BBC is most definitely able to be used as a citation. From the user's homepage: "That all life forms were created some 6000 years ago during the creation week; And that there was a global cataclysm. Both the creation and the Flood are established fact within which science is done. They are not hypotheses to be falsified by the scientific method." Which is a completely niche view and completely at odds with science and (as this article suggests) even at odds with the majority of religious followers. NathanLee (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have myself reverted edits by Christian Skeptic, as they have appeared blatantly motivated. I keep a close eye on him specifically because of that conflict of interest. But let's not forget about your conflict of interest. I have objected to your edit because it drags the article offtopic right in the middle of the introduction. In case you're unaware, geology proves nothing about whether the Ark was fictional. Geology proves that there was no global flood. It says nothing about the Ark. Your inability to distinguish between the two subjects is just one of the issues causing you problems with the content of this article. The BBC article does say that 'experts' believe the Ark itself was impractical ('It would have been about 450ft long, and experts say it would have broken apart'), and that reference definitely belongs in this article. But as I have already pointed out, that reference is already in this article, and I know because I was the one who put it there.

Your history of editing this article demonstrates that you have no interest in contributing any material relevant to the Ark, all you want to talk about is the flood. You have contributed nothing about the Ark whatsoever. You have repeatedly attempted to increase the amount of weight given to the flood in this article. You have repeatedly ignored the fact that the flood receives due weight in this article, including an entire section on how post-Renaissance science demonstrated there was no global flood, and how by the 19th century most scientists and Christians had abandoned the literal interpretation of the flood. Your only interest is in posting references which prove there was no global flood. That's fine, but it doesn't belong here. For this reason I have invited you to go and edit the relevant page, which is on Noah's flood. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan boi, my understand is that this article is not about a mythological vessel, it is about the myth in its entirety. Just would like to seek clarification on that. I do agree that Deluge (mythology) is the appropriate place to discuss theological and scientific merits of a global flood - but material pertainly directly to the flood as it appears in the Noah story does rightly belong here for the moment. The deluge article points readers to here as the "main article" for teh Noah's ark (and flood) story.--ZayZayEM (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is about a mythological vessel. It's about the mythological vessel called 'Noah's Ark'. This is conveyed to the reader by means of the article title, which is 'Noah's Ark'. I agree that material pertaining to the flood does belong in here. Let me make something clear to you. There is already an abundance of material pertaining to the flood in this article. It is utterly bizarre that pepole are arguing for an inclusion of the flood in this article, when this article already includes plenty of material on the flood. Are people just not reading the article? The deluge article points readers here only because there is no separate article on the Genesis deluge. That is not an excuse for dumping anything and everything on the flood, in this article. It's a reason why we need a separate article on the flood, as I have argued repeatedly. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There is an abundance of material relating to ships. This needs to be about the story, that includes flood, animals, Noah etc. Actually: that IS what the article is about if you just stop using this excuse to remove something that disagrees with the idea that the bible is giving a factual view of history rather than just a legendary/mythical story. NathanLee (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Article scope

Please discuss the article's scope.

The Disambiguator at the top of the page states "This article is about the vessel and flood narrative described in Genesis"

This article is not about just s mythological vessel, it is also about its narrative, which includes the Genesis flood.

Deluge (mythology) contains very little scholarship regarding the flood event (most of the article is spent listing all mentions of a deluge in myth). That article also directs readers to here as the "main article" on the Genesis flood.

This article is the current appropriate location for information on the scientific credibility of the Genesis flood. That said it is the appropriate location for information on the scientific credibility of the Genesis flood. A short paragraph on scientific consensus reagrding a global deluge in general may be relevant, but the majority of material should be material that is directly relevant to the events of Genesis (ie. persons directly setting out to prove/disprove/analyse the Genesis flood).--ZayZayEM (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Disambiguator is not an excuse to dump in this article anything on the flood. This article is not the current appropriate location for information on the scientific credibility of the Genesis flood, and not the appropriate location for information on the scientific credibility of the Genesis flood. It is not the place for 'persons directly setting out to prove/disprove/analyse the Genesis flood'. The fact that the Deluge article contains very little scholarship regarding the flood event is a reason to improve the Deluge article. The fact that there's no separate article on the Genesis flood is a good reason why someone needs to start one. If an article contains insufficient content, you add content. If a specific article doesn't exist which should exist, you create the article. You don't go dumping material in other articles. This is Misplaced Pages 101, and I don't understand why people are having such a hard time grasping it. Having said all of which, let me remind you of something yet again. The flood is referred to in the article. If you look at the section 'The Ark in post-Renaissance scholarship', you'll find that it's almost entirely about scientific objections to the flood narrative, which is more than enough mention of the flood in an article on the Ark.

This is what is in there at present (not including the links I put in which say the Ark and flood are both unscientific):

• 'By the 19th century, the discoveries of geologists, archaeologists and biblical scholars had led most scientists and many Christians to abandon a literal interpretation of the Ark story,'
• 'By the 17th century, it was becoming necessary to reconcile the exploration of the New World and increased awareness of the global distribution of species with the older belief that all life had sprung from a single point of origin on the slopes of Mount Ararat.'
• 'Incorporating the full range of animal diversity into the Ark story was becoming increasingly difficult, and by the middle of the 18th century few natural historians could justify a literal interpretation of the Noah's Ark narrative.'
• 'Scientific geology had a profound impact on attitudes towards the Biblical Flood and Ark story: without the support of the Biblical chronology, which placed the Creation and the Flood and Ark very precisely in history, the historicity of the Ark itself was undermined.'
• 'As early as the 19th century the view that the flood was merely local and did not cover the earth was well established within mainstream Christianity.' --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Flood Geology is where scientific ideas about Noah's Flood are discussed..... Christian Skeptic (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is not an indiscriminate dumping grounds for scientific critique. It is a discriminate dumping ground. Material specifically having to do with the Ark myth (and its flood narrative) belongs here. Creationism is not the Ark myth, and therefore material relevant to that does not belong here. The deluge article is not only about the Genesis Flood and directs readers here as the "main" article on teh Genesis flood. Material specifically pertaining to the Genesis flood is relevant here if given in the context of the Ark narrative. The material in the article at present that you are highlighthing is good example of discriminate inclusion (that is a good thing). Material directly relevant to Genesis narrative will be mostly be of pre-19th century European nature. After that stage we have a clear creationist movement that is doing more than just a flood narrative, and an Western recognition the presence of alternative deluge mythology to debunk. --ZayZayEM (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What the disambiguator says depends entirely on who was the last to edit it. PiCo (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Forking

Should separate articles be made for Noah's Ark and Genesis flood/Genesis deluge?

Or should they be SUMMARY sequence

• Deluge (mythology) (all myths) --> Noah's Ark (The ark narrative, with some flood narrative) --> Genesis flood (specifics of the flood, biblical and scientific scholarship on the flood)
• Deluge (mythology) (all myths) --> Genesis flood (The ark/flood narrative) --> Noah's Ark (specifics of the vessel, recreations, claims of discovery)

I think the latter sequence is more intuitive in deciding content location.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before. The Ark and the Genesis flood certainly need two separate articles, as they are different subjects (though obviously related). I agree that your latter sequence makes sense. Deluge mythology is the broadest category, the Genesis flood is one sub-category of deluge mythology, and Noah's Ark is one element of the Genesis flood. What we really need to do is start an article specifically on the Genesis flood, split off from the Deluge (mythology) page. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Significant changes to an FA (ie. renaming the article, and forking out extensive content) is a big bother. We need to be very sure consensus exists, and it will undoubtably require delisting from FA status.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't see anything which has to change in this article. We just need to create a new article on the Genesis flood, create a link to it from the Deluge mythology flood, and a link to this article in the new Genesis flood article. I don't see that any extensive content has to be removed or put anywhere else. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This current article discusses much content I would expect at Genesis flood. The entire narrative about Noah (ie. what Noah before the flood, how he coped on teh ark, and what occured afterwards, God's reason's for the flood, what the whole thing is a metaphor for etc.) should go on the flood article which I would see as the Ark-story/myth Genesis 6-9 article. This article (or an article named Noah's Ark) would deal specifically with the boat (description, how it was alleged built, theological/metaphysical/rational complications of a boat containing all species in the world, appearances in popular culture, modern mock-ups, hunts for the Ark etc.). This would not be a simple process of working what belongs where. I would not like to create a new article with at least some content being moved.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This article contains some content which would expected at Genesis flood. I see no problem with that, as it belongs here also as the backstory to the Ark. I think this article deals with all of the things you say an Ark article should deal with. I don't see why a new article couldn't be created which duplicates some of the material in this article and expands on it. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(indent)Good to see someone else thinks it is strange to separate out the flood from this story but still talk about the story, but say we're just talking about the ark itself. If the article is about the ark: then this article should be about two sentences long: which is the total mention in the STORY OF NOAH'S ARK. Without the story, including the flood: there is no ark.

What this distinction is used for is to crush the mention that this story has no element of truth as far as science is concerned. If there is a link to deluge mythology: this page should not have any trace of the term "mythology" removed by the way. Let's call a spade a spade and a shovel a shovel. Enough with trying to make this sound like a factual historic account. NathanLee (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nathan you really just don't read what people write, do you? There is agreement on the idea of writing a separate flood article. That is actually the exact opposite of what you wanted. The distinction is not to 'crush the mention that this story has no element of truth as far as science is concerned'. It's a distinction which is necessary to elaborate in detail the two main elements of this narrative. Your claims about what this article contains and what it should contain are simply ridiculous. The relevant background to the story of the Ark receives due weight in the article. What I and others have objected to us giving undue weight to these issues. See WP:COAT and WP:WEIGHT. You keep going on and on about this article supposedly lacking any reference to the skeptical scientific position on the Ark and flood, yet you never provide any evidence for your claims. I have already shown you this, and I will keep showing you this every time you air your ridiculous complaint:

• 'By the 19th century, the discoveries of geologists, archaeologists and biblical scholars had led most scientists and many Christians to abandon a literal interpretation of the Ark story,'
• 'By the 17th century, it was becoming necessary to reconcile the exploration of the New World and increased awareness of the global distribution of species with the older belief that all life had sprung from a single point of origin on the slopes of Mount Ararat.'
• 'Incorporating the full range of animal diversity into the Ark story was becoming increasingly difficult, and by the middle of the 18th century few natural historians could justify a literal interpretation of the Noah's Ark narrative.'
• 'Scientific geology had a profound impact on attitudes towards the Biblical Flood and Ark story: without the support of the Biblical chronology, which placed the Creation and the Flood and Ark very precisely in history, the historicity of the Ark itself was undermined.'
• 'As early as the 19th century the view that the flood was merely local and did not cover the earth was well established within mainstream Christianity.'
• 'Notwithstanding diligent search, I have been unable to discover that the universality of the Deluge has any defender left, at least among those who have so far mastered the rudiments of natural knowledge as to be able to appreciate the weight of evidence against it.'
• 'It would have been about 450ft long, and experts say it would have broken apart.'
• 'the odds are that the technology of the time and the reputed material (gopher wood or shittim wood = ?acacia) would have made such a structure too flimsy for the purpose.'
• 'the construction of the Ark, given the conditions stated in the Bible, would probably have been impossible.'

Your complete failure to acknowledge these statements in the article is telling. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously ad nauseam (and I mean ad nauseam), and the consensus is to use the most neutral compromise language wherever possible, not intentionally provocative, inflammatory or ambiguous language, since there are still many believers around the world who passionately reject using the word "mythology" to label the Bible. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, despite the fact that Nathan complains specifically about me, I was entirely content for the article to be placed under 'mythology', and the Ark referred to as a mythological vessel. Not only that, but I have included more reliable sources identifying skeptical attitudes to the flood and Ark than any other editor who has contributed to this article. I have worked hard to keep this article NPOV, including deleting edits by Christians who have attempted to provide illegitimate support for the historicity of the Ark. Nathan's own contribution has been less than minimal, and has been clearly self-interested. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There is actually quite a plethora of secondary and tertiary sources that discuss the ark itself. Even in Genesis there is quite more than two sentances mention of the ark. We are told the reason why the ark was built. Who built. What it was used for. The materials used to to build the ark. It's dimensions. Scholars have since expanded upon this information with their own interpretation. The ark has featured in many cultural works. As a key biblical relic it is is the basis of many biblical archaelogical expeditions (and hoaxes). Replicas of the ark exist in the world today (and past). Mythylogical objkects have been placed in articles describing the objects without necessarily their complete narrative attached. Such as Excalibur (from King Arthur and the Matter of Britain) or Ark of the Covenant (narrative is included but certain aspects are seperated Philistine captivity of the Ark) or the One Ring which thankfully is not a replication of the Lord of the Rings article.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the whole purpose of this article is to make as much fun of the idea of Noah's Ark and the Flood as possible, to rub the belief of millions of people in their own faces. The "prove" that the Ark could not exist and the Flood impossible. In other words to impose atheistic bigotry on the widest number of people possible. Allenroyboy (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That's just Nathan's agenda. Fortunately he doesn't own the article, and moderate editors have prevailed. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was to provide an objective comprehensive coverage of all significant views on the topic. But then, I've been called a fun-spoiler.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not my agenda or my attempt to own it, I'd say if anyone's been doing that: it's you with your bizarre view of what this article must refer to. You've (I assume) got no worries about the article talking about the story, Noah, what biblical scholars think the story means, animal waste management, history of interpretation of the STORY etc. But use this idea that the article is "just about the ark" to chop whatever you don't want in there (while leaving everything else in there). Your comment about mythology is just a flat out lie: you chop out the reference in your "contributions" (e.g. reverting) . So do I have your support to improve the article by putting mention of mythology in the article? You know, like EVERY OTHER story of this type under the banner of "deluge MYTHOLOGY". Maybe you can get pico to take their finger off the revert button also.

Allenroyboy - the fact that the Earth isn't flat isn't "atheistic bigotry", it's just science. That millions of people think something is true doesn't make it so, and we're not here to lend extra support to completely unfounded, illogical and known false stories. My agenda (if I have to have one): correct labelling of this as mythology consistent with other stories of this nature, clear emphasis of the science that shows this to be just a story not factual. I had attempted to introduce some less "judeo-christian" centric language in the article (e.g. "a god", "a deity") making this an impartial neutral coverage of the topic but it's pretty obvious that people have a small world view and can't cope with the notion that judeo/christian monotheism isn't the only option, nor is "god" only used to refer to the one in the NT. But hey, moderate editors with their inability to comprehend discussing a topic like this in impartial, neutral terms without getting offended have far more time than I to keep reverting this article. NathanLee (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Mass Genocide

According to the story, god committed an unmercifull act of mass genocide. I think there should at least be a mention of this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.7.181 (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, we couldn't mention it at all - unless maybe you found a prominent source that has ever shared your interpretation, but this is actually the first time I've ever seen anyone make that specific assertion about Noah's Ark.. Also, traditionally, other words are used for genocides that took place before, say, 1900; the nuance of that word seems to imply something that happened in more modern times. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Other words are used for pre-1900? Go tell them that in Australia! PiCo (talk) 07:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that case could be an exception! But in several other cases throughout earlier history, I have read things like "It might have been called genocide, if the word had been coined yet" keeping the point that it is an anachronism, but that is the closest they come. Of course, it is still the same thing no matter what it's called. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Online Etymology Dictionary says, "genocide 1944, apparently coined by Polish-born U.S. jurist Raphael Lemkin in his work 'Axis Rule in Occupied Europe' , in reference to Nazi extermination of Jews, lit. 'killing a tribe,' from Gk. genos 'race, kind' (see genus) + -cide, from L. -cidere 'kill,' comb. form of caedere 'to cut, kill' (see concise). The proper formation would be *genticide." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Some general comments

How the hell this is a featured article is beyond me. The referencing is inconsistent, there are several one-sentence paragraphs - which certainly don't help the flow of the article, and the prose is certainly not outstanding in parts. To me, it looks like it has been over-rated due to its length and wealth of sources - which don't actually count for a thing. I would say it is B-class at best, and needs work to become GA-class. FA-class? I'm baffled. Unless this is significantly different to when it was featured, but even so, the ratings of this page need to change - there is no way that this is "one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community". Rusty8 (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It was classified as a featured article a long time ago. Since then it has been hacked about by various editors with conflicting agendas, and it is taking a small handful of us a long time to repair the article due to the repeated interference of these editors. It should not be classified as a featured article at present. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I think that the word mythology should be deleted, along with that ugly looking info box. My reasons:

• If you believe Genesis to be a myth, then there is no need to add this extra word. It just conflates the article and makes for an awkward sentence so it's just an unnecessary word put there to try and push a POV.
• If you don't believe that Genesis is myth, then you don't want the word either. So, both sides (unless POV) don't need the word.

I say this word and ugly box should be removed. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 22:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that has been the established consensus for some time, but this is part of a pov pushing slippery slope, the pov pushers never stop trying to have wikipedia officially "declare" various selected religion's beliefs to be "mythology", including the Old Testament, New Testament, and Quran. The actual concept of "neutrality" is just too mind boggling for them, you see, it's only fun for them if they can hurt someone else's religion... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the myth box, which clarifies this terminology to avoid this misconception. An encyclopaedia doesn't and shouldn't depend on additional knowledge or belief structures to convey accurate information/classification of a topic. "belief" has nothing to do with whether or not this is mythology. It forms part of jewish and christian mythology. "Greek mythology" is not a hate term etc. You both need to read the myth box and you'd see why what you're saying is incorrect. Mythology definitely applies to this story (which is one of many the many tales involving deluge mythology). Just because it is in a book you believe is 100% true doesn't change that. Your ignorance does not make this POV pushing. If you can say why this isn't mythology. The "ugly box" is necessary to educate people such as yourselves. So I'll ask: do you think that this is not a story that fits in the term "mythology"? NathanLee (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You've gone against consensus, you've broken 3RR now to POV-war and push your blatantly anti-Bible POV that calls the Bible "mythology". Not everyone shares your POV, there are other POVs than yours, many highly significant ones - even the current Pope is on record as writing a book imploring that the Bible is NOT to be classed as mythology, and yet you do not recognise the right of Christians to interpret their own Scriptures or have their own POV, and insist on your having the right as a wikipedia editor to interpret it FOR them. This offensive and bigoted behaviour has been resisted to the utmost, and it will continue to be resisted, mark my words. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Aah, what consensus was that? Perhaps you could explain the reasons why an article on mythology can't have the myth box (to explain it clearly to people like yourself) and use the term "mythology" to clearly differentiate it from "historical account". Can you read the definition in the myth box and explain to me why this article (in the interests of neutrality you claim to want) cannot use your "forbidden word". Christians can believe whatever they want, just as those who believe greek mythology is not mythology. The myth box is there to clear this up, that's why I put it in there.

The pope also believes that condom usage is evil and dying from HIV/AIDS is preferable. His views are not the only ones (he thinks that catholicism is the one true religion, putting him at odds with every other religion and thus the majority of the world..) and I'm sorry, but this article IS about a mythological story. Do you dispute that this story is mythological as per the definition? Do you not think that the myth box clears this up?

The role of wikipedia is not to avoid terms that a small percentage might find offensive because of their fundamentalist interpretations of the bible. The expression "call a spade a spade and a shovel a shovel" springs to mind. Without making it clear the origins of this tale: you risk confusing those who might read the content without a knowledge of christianity and genesis's origins from earlier folklore. NathanLee (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Should Christian mythology should be removed by your rationale? As well as the categories As any use of the term "mythology" I would imagine. What should we call "greek mythology" or "jewish mythology" or "Norse mythhology" or "hindu mythology" or "aboriginal mythology"? Now if you choose to see past your bible you'd realise that this term isn't "offensive" etc because in academic terms it is a well defined creature. Also: can you provide a reference for your comment about the pope and his anti-mythology term, I couldn't find a news reference on that. NathanLee (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, you are clearly and now arrogantly pushing your POV when its been shown to be unnecessary (why do you ignore the logic?). It's simple: it's NOT necessary to put the word myth in UNLESS you're trying to belittle and demean. Let the fact stand and you can interpret the fact how you like, but don't force others to. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 14:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Why is calling a mythological story a mythological story a waste of time? This is an encyclopaedia and should have a suitable level of information contained with the article to make relevant information clear. That this is a mythological story is most certainly relevant. Some people believe myths, some people don't. Chopping out mention of it is just attempting to skew this towards "factual account". So the page "Christian mythology" is a belittling and demeaning page? Greek mythology is belittling? You may regard this as factually 100% accurate (some myths are true, others are just stories), just as all myths have their believers: an encyclopaedic entry should make it clear what class of story this is. The term "mythology" is explained in the myth box. This story is part of "Christian mythology". Explain it to me why using that term in this article is belittling?? NathanLee (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have heard all your POV arguments before many many times, I'm just not buying them. I remember a few years back we had a user (perhaps a sockpuppet of this one for all I know) who kept on trying to label "mythology" on Resurrection of Jesus and Quran, in addition to this one and several others. All the exact same arguments applied there that we're seeing now - ie "it just IS mythology, simply because I think so, and everyone who disagrees doesn't count, because they are wrong and I am right". Blah blah blah. Our cornerstone policy at wikipedia has always been to opt for the least controversial and compromise wording for all articles, strenuously avoiding any ambiguous terms that could even seem like leaning toward one POV. It's called the WP:NPOV policy - you may wish to read it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This policy speaks exACTly to what we are speaking about. It it DEFinitely tells us to leave out the word "myth" or "mythology". I've pasted it the policy here for you, and I will stand by it:

"Let the facts speak for themselves

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide."

T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 16:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel: I have never used another account to edit, nor do I edit IP anonymously. Do you by any chance? It seems your account is just used to revert things.

Your POV contradicts the dictionary definition of what the term means. Can you please tell me why this story is not "mythology" and why the term/article "christian mythology" exists? The most neutral non POV is to label it (as I have tried to do) as mythology WITH the definition in the myth box which allows for (once again) the possibility that this story might be anything ranging from complete factual through to complete made up. I can't see how you can object to that. No person of any intelligence can look at the article with a disclaimer clarifying what mythology means and then say (as you are doing) that we can't use that term for this article.

What you are in fact doing is saying that "despite the disclaimer and definition, I'm insisting that it means something else and can't be used". That's the only POV here: I've clarified what the term means, made it clear and said why it fits the dictionary definition AND given a tonne of examples of the term being used. You dispute it "just because" it seems.

Again: looking at the definition in the myth box: do you dispute that this article falls under that banner?

Tjbergsma: that policy has got nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Read this instead

Fact: this story is mythological in nature. Some people regard it as factual, some as pure fiction. That's fine, that's why we label this a mythological story which can allow the judgement which you seek to keep out of the article. Noah's ark is mythology as per the definition in the myth box: If you dispute this, then please lay it on the line. The word: "Mythology" is not hate speech! If I was campaigning to have the lead start with "Noah's ark is a big fat dirty lie made in the bible" then that's making a judgement (moralising). Stating it is mythology is just saying: the nature of this story is mythological, may or may not be true in part or whole or based on real events. That is all. Consistent with Christian mythology, Greek mythology, Deluge (mythology) etc. What is your issue with that? Again I'll ask: by your "logic" the page or term Christian mythology cannot exist and the term "mythology" should never ever be used (which is absolutely and utterly ridiculous). There's no exemption for christianity just because you want wikipedia to re-inforce the fundamentalist interpretation. NathanLee (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nathan wrote: "Tjbergsma: that policy has got nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Read this instead "

I disagree. Your link has nothing to do with this article, my link does. I read yours slowly, and twice over, it really has no bearing on this particular edit we are discussing. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 16:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is another cut and paste of Misplaced Pages policy:

"Words that label

Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition. For example:

   * "The Peoples Temple is a cult, which..."
   * "The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization."
   * "Pedophilia is a sexual perversion..."

Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of an outsider looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral."

T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 16:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In passing, NathanLee is completely correct here. The term "myth" is simply not synonymous with "fiction" and is certainly not used in relevant sources in this way. Just because many people choose to interpret the term in this way doesn't mean that we should (there are similar misuses of "theory" in the context of science topics but, again, we stick to the formal use). --PLUMBAGO 16:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the definitions of "myth" and "mythology" IS fiction. In fact, (we've been through this many times before) the etymology of the word proves that this is the older and original definition in English. Thus the word is clearly what we call "ambiguous", being as it has more than one definition. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's ONE definition of myth. In this case scientifically that seems like the likely one. But is there something wrong with your eyes: read the myth box text. It gives a VERY clear definition of what the term means (including that definition AND "factual historical") and how wikipedia uses it. It's a "terminology for dummies" stuck right at the top of the article. Maybe it needs to be flashing red (a "terminology for blind morons" version perhaps?) Have you read it? I really can't see how you can keep saying your definition when the myth box SPECIFICALLY says how the term is to be correctly interpreted. You're arguing for ignorance. The myth box is to make it absolutely clear. Some people might call their cat by the name "mythology", but when an article has a definition laid out in plain sight: you can't then turn around and say "well in my eyes the term mythology means cat and therefore we can't use it".

So I completely agree, the term can mean fiction. That's entirely appropriate for this article as per the views of both scientists and biblical scholars who treat it as just a fictional tale. It's like we're stuck with you lot with your pre-"hey guys this stuff isn't actually real" transition that scientists and biblical scholars alike made hundreds of years back.

Really, this is getting absurd. The term is defined so that no one can say exactly the sort of silly things you're saying. BTW: The link I gave is on the NPOV FAQ on religion. In particular the mention of treatment of religion that may not agree with their beliefs on how the topic should be presented. e.g. "wikipedia isn't here to present the views solely of the religion". Mythology as a term covers the range of options, omitting it only covers "it's factual as far as we religious folk believe". Just because you guys cringe at the thought that this story is something other than literally true, it can only be labelled as mythology because it certainly doesn't appear factual based on science (refer to that link further down on "pseudoscience" if you want more information). NathanLee (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I still stand on Misplaced Pages policy. Even if it is the dictionary definition, we are not to explicitly give an implied viewpoint. It's implied in the term Book of Genesis that it is myth -- policy clearly says, don't make it explicit (please read above). That should end the argument. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 19:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You aren't standing by any policy, nor is it clear in your strange interpretation of the policy you posted up. It certainly IS NOT implied in that term that it is a myth. It DOES need to be explicit. You're ignoring the standard way "mythology" is used in many other articles and taking mythology to be an offensive/attack word (which is a hell of a niche view. You know about niche views and wikipedia policy I trust?). We've got the definition that you are supposed to use: if you choose to ignore that and have your own personal view of what the word is then that's a personal issue YOU have and not backed by wikipedia policies at all.

I'll ask AGAIN: Christian mythology, Greek mythology: you appear to be saying that they are not allowed on wikipedia because they use your forbidden word. Is this correct? NathanLee (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is all covered by WP:WEASEL. You are trying to weasel in an implied POV on the scripture of a living religion, with a weasel-word you know is ambiguous. Beliefs that are not currently believed in have nobody to object if they are called myths, that is a red herring I have seen a million times already. We are talking about beliefs that are widespread today, and we must not use weasel words to decsribe them. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is getting a bit silly. "Myth" is simply not a weasel word. The definition begins:

Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. The "who?" link is used because a Misplaced Pages editor feels that the preceding statement uses weasel words. Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable.

How this relates to the use of "myth" here is unclear. We can find any number of reliable sources that attest to Noah's Ark (and similar narratives) being myths. Can we get some input from other editors please? --PLUMBAGO 20:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This debate has been going on for two years, people just do not want to be "told" by faceless wikipedia editors that their firmly held beliefs are "myths", no matter what semantic games you apply to it, this is indeed getting very silly and I feel it may be time for arbitration again to settle the obvious question of whether it is neutral for wikipedia to declare the Bible and Quran "mythology", a word that has a long history of being used by anti-religious bigots to persecute religious beliefs in places like Albania. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Only two years? It's barely gotten started then!  :-) And what's with the "semantic games"? We're simply using a word in its most accepted sense to describe one of many similar (but mutually exclusive) narratives of history. Is there a better word to describe such topics? And will not that word then take on the patina of "fiction" down the line? And then what about those religious people (who can be in the majority depending upon where you're standing) who hold to the same faith but interpret these narratives as metaphorical or allegorical? The term "myth", understood in proper context, seems simply the best word to use here. But it may be time to try for at least more views if not arbitration. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 22:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel: Sounds to me like you are effectively denying that the term "christian mythology" is allowed to exist because some christian might take offence at it because of their religious beliefs. Is that correct?

If we want to get down to it: It is mythology by pretty much all definitions you care to look at (as far as science/evidence/history/rational thought is concerned). This page has been protected against the use of the term thanks to revert happy people like yourself who don't appear able to read the definition that specifically states exactly what you're arguing about. I'll point you to the Mohammed page for something which clarifies wikipedia's opinion on "not offending people's religious beliefs" (an impossible goal to begin with): look for the picture of mohammed, some people take high offence at that, that doesn't mean it doesn't improve an encyclopaedia entry. I'd propose that your view (mythology = some sort of "hate word" and supplying a definition to clarify is not enough) is a somewhat nonsensical argument to be trying to defend by edit warring. Making this appear factual to suit your (or anyone elses) religious beliefs is a clear failure of the goals of neutral/detached/world view article writing. We're not here to write just the bible's viewpoint on the world, we're here to write the world viewpoint on the world. In that context, this is clearly mythology. Only inside biblical literalist/creationists circles is this "factual" (and even then in varying degrees). NathanLee (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

All you are saying over and over again is that you have the POV that this is mythology, yet you continually say it is not a POV because you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Your contention that you are right simply because you are right, does not rise to wikipedia's standards for proof. Many editors here beside myself are uncomfortable with using this definite weasel word to describe any part of the Bible or other religions holy books. There are plenty of topics that exist in Christian mythology, but we do not state that the Quran is mythology on that article, notwithstanding that many might consider it to be so, and might dearly relish the opportunity to overthrow NPOV by getting it "declared" mythology, using precisely the same tactics you do. So, why can't we state that the Quran is mythology? Because, that is not neutral, that would be sneaking a WEASEL attack word in along with a trojan horse of semantic arguments. By the same token, we do not describe the Book of Mormon as mythology on that article, we do not describe the Talmud as mythology, we do not describe the Bhagavad Gita as mythology, we do not describe the Gospel of John as mythology, we do not describe the Old Testament or any part of it as mythology, simply put, we CANNOT be in the business of "deciding" whose beliefs or scriptures followed by a significant number of adherents are to be labeled "mythology", even if you twist the definitions to suit you and say they are mythology anyway because you define the word that way (not everyone goes along with that and many editors are uncomfortable with it), it does not disguise what you are doing. I see no solution to this but take it back to arbcom; it really needs to be made clearer still that this is the very epitome of a npov violation. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What you say Til is just what the policy says: "Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of an outsider looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral." Thus it is POV and should not be in. It lowers the quality of the article. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 02:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you guys just answer two simple questions: Is their any such thing as "christian mythology" permitted or not? Is "greek mythology" permitted or not?

As I've stated: this is not my POV that this is mythology, it is the definition as per the myth box, as per numerous other articles, academic use etc. Your reason is "I don't like it and the pope might not like it(although still waiting for that link?)". And yes, the qur'an has mythology in it also that's why there's a page/category on it too Islamic mythology. Your view is niche as the term mythology is used all over the place, in academic circles it is perfectly acceptable, it's just those with a strict literal creationist view that can't stand it. Consistency, neutrality and accuracy is the goal. NathanLee (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Over 80% of the USA population do not consider the Bible to be mythology. To call it mythology is a minority POV. If you want to consider it mythology--fine. If some scholars consider it mythology--fine. But to force your ideas and the ideas of some scholars on the population at large is POV. Most of the USA population are not all that impressed with what some scholars think. Using "the Bible says", or "according to the Bible story" is plenty neutral. If someone were to say "this is a fact because the Bible says so" that would be a POV opinion. Saying "Bible mythology", is the opposite POV opinion. Christian Skeptic (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement. As a literal believer of the Bible, (I believe God made the world in six days, and I have reliable scientific proof) I think that the article should be at least neutral, if not slightly favourable to Christians. Don't call it mythology! Don't call it fact. Just treat the Bible's "impossible" statements as written in the Bible, not as a myth, story, or proven fact. Later on, (Long term future) when there is more evidence for me to refer to, I could try to get some truthful and proven statements about some of the things talked about in the Bible in Misplaced Pages.--Thin Smek (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(indent)Where to begin? Christian Skeptic : Are you sure you don't mean "80% of the USA are christian"? What of the rest of the world by the way? As I've said above: the majority of the world thinks that the bible is false (add up non-christian religions), so by your argument we should put "the bible is Evil false theology". Secondly: what you are doing is "" which is what is known as a fallacious argument (e.g. "bullshit reasoning" in layman's terms).

Thin Smek: there is no "reliable scientific proof" of what you speak of, you mean "made up creationist pseudo-science", and I'd refer you to the policy FAQ on how pseudo-science should be treated.

Perhaps you two would like "conservapedia" or whatever it is called, probably more what you're looking for. Or perhaps read the definition of mythology which states EXACTLY what you're wanting e.g. not necessarily fact, not necessarily fiction. NathanLee (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Nathan, we know already that your personal opinion is that the Bible is false, because you've stated this is your pov many times. That's fine, you have a right to your opinion. What you don't have the right to do is push your pov onto an article on behalf of everyone else that feels otherwise about the Bible than you do, who are also significant povs especially on a highly controversial subject of Bible interpretation, where generally there are several competing interpretations, which should all be presented neutrally as possible without endorsing any one of them nor declaring any of them false. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No actually, I've stated that the SCIENTIFIC viewpoint is that this story is false. So again, the question: the term "christian mythology" is forbidden or not? It's got nothing to do with my POV, or indeed scientists. NathanLee (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Failure to come up with an answer as to why the term Christian mythology can't exist: I've put it back in the article, as per consistency with Jewish mythology, Islamic mythology. Surely someone can refer to the discussions on those pages if they have an issue with the term (and can't read the myth box for clarity) NathanLee (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Nathan -- the link to the Book of Genesis that you keep labeling as mythology, does not even have the word mythology in its article. Therefore, please do not give you pov adjective here when the main article it points to doesn't even have it. Thanks for being considerate and following wikipedia's rules. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 01:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, but take a look at Christian mythology and tell me: is Noah's ark in there? Is that article full of links to references that mention the term mythology? Is this article not part of the christian mythology, jewish mythology and islamic mythology categories? Is this not one of the many Deluge (mythology) stories?

Again: you seem to be disputing those terms can ever be used (in contradiction with say.. common use of the term, consistent treatment as ohter mythologies). It's you arguing for an exception because of your religious beliefs.. I'm just saying treat this mythological story of this particular religion like all others. NathanLee (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Here's the current text from the lead of Christian mythology: "Christian mythology (μῦθος (mythos) in Greek) is the body of traditional narratives associated with Christianity. Many Christians believe that these narratives are sacred and that they communicate profound truths. These traditional narratives include, but are not necessarily limited to, the stories contained in the Christian Bible."

Gee, does that sound like the story of Noah's ark might fit exactly that?? So can I get a reason why this term is forbidden, or perhaps the article that says the pope objected to it that was cited earlier but no reference supplied.. Or even something that says the literal interpretation of this story is the majority or generally accepted world view. Or any sort of peer reviewed scientific journal article that indicates that any part of this story could be scientifically true. Scientifically: it can be labelled "pure" myth/fiction as of our current understanding of the universe and the Earth's history. Just like "the earth is flat" is able to be labelled as disproved. That the myth box allows for it to be true when it has zero geological evidence is really unnecessary. It would be perfectly acceptable from a scientific viewpoint to label this story as fiction if push comes to shove. The article itself says that even biblical scholars reject a literal interpretation of this story.. SO WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?? The niche viewpoint of literal creationists is just a minority, unsupported view. That we have a bunch of you protecting this article doesn't make it any less niche. NathanLee (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not calling for any special "exception". I do not like to see ANY living religion that is widespread today, get tarred with being declared "mythology". I have supported many changes that were already decided on to this end, such as moving Yoruba mythology to Yoruba religion - because Yoruba religion is still practised, and is not a dead mythology. All of the great encyclopedias of the 20th century studiously avoid declaring any of the living religions as 'mythology' - because for many centuries, 'mythology' is conventually used to denote former religions, with living religions being a distinct category called 'religion'. The only parties who have tried to blur these lines and call a living religion 'mythology' are those who are pointedly attacking it and trying to hasten its demise - including mainly the leaders of the French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Communists in Russia, China, Albania, Cuba, and every other Communist country, and NathanLee. Misplaced Pages is neutral ground and must not be used as a vehicle for such ineffective semantic games. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That's asking for an exception. Misplaced Pages has to treat ALL religions equally, living and dead the same. You are asking for an exemption and denying that the term "christian mythology" exists or should exist? I beg to differ.

Your definition is just ignorant beyond belief: Mythology and religion are not just different states of the same thing. e.g. a religion doesn't stop being a religion and become mythology. Mythology is not "dead religion". It may be the stories of a dead religion or a live religion. A religion HAS or CAN HAVE mythology. Can I refer you to a dictionary for definitions of mythology (or just read the myth box for one), this is just stupid to be arguing your bizarre definition. Can you provide something that backs up your hysterical communist peril rant? It helps to know what words mean before you start edit warring over the definitions of them. NathanLee (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That IS the conventional distinction between living religions and dead mythology; as I said, check any great Encyclopedia of the 20th century. Why can't wikipedia observe the same distinction? You would have wikipedia, for reasons that are historically suspect, establish bold new, and original precedents for mainstream encyclopedias, by lumping two categories that should be strictly separated: significant views in the world today, with views no longer significant in the world today. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

They don't label Christianity as "a cream tart" either, that's because it is not a cream tart. Religion is not called mythology in encyclopaedias because that's NOT WHAT IT MEANS. It means story. Not "set of beliefs/rules/moral lessons/rituals etc". Misplaced Pages makes the distinction: Mythology isn't the same as Religion. Just like Christianity isn't the same as Cream tart. Surely that's common sense. Before you revert out the myth box next time: try reading the definition, it might clear up your misconception. NathanLee (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Space in the Ark?

I have moved this statement here. It was recently added but not sourced. If a reliable source is found it could certainly fit, but let's not lower the quality of this article further with unsourced conjecture:

"Some detailed studies have proved that even when using the common 18 inch cubit, all the animals could not have taken much more that half the available space in the ark, providing all the fish and other sea creatures remained in the flood. (The pre-flood seas are very likely to have been mostly freshwater)"

Cheers, T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 02:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous reverts over one accurate word

This is getting ridiculous: I've several editors (one, Til Eulenspiegel, who now clearly appears to not even know what the word means that he/she is so against and has their own special definition.. from above).

• It is a niche viewpoint not supported by dictionary or wikipedia definition that mythology implies completely false or "dead religion" or something like that,
• the myth box is there to clarify it and conveniently provide a definition for the "language challenged" and states how the term is used academically,
• avoiding the term contradicts the treatment of other religions and this religion also (to which this user is asking for an exemption for religions that still have followers, which is against wikipedia policy)
• existing pages Christian mythology, Jewish mythology, Islamic mythology, Creation mythology, Deluge (mythology) all seem happy enough with the term (of which Noah's ark is a part of), that's "consensus" surely?

I can't believe the lengths people are going to to prevent accurate labelling of an article to avoid confusing this story with factual historical accounts. There's a definition right on the page that one can't insist the term can be misinterpreted. I'm resisting the temptation to just ask what affiliation these people have with creationist groups (like Christian Skeptic), because it seems the arguments flip from clutter, to "you're POV pushing" to "against consensus" (where consensus across other articles should suggest that the term is widely used), but with nothing more than fallacious appeals to population or accusations of POV pushing when it's just a matter of consistency and accuracy rather than special exception and "not offending some people's beliefs". How can this be resolved? The use of the term mythology isn't implying "false", it's implying "may or may not be true and some people believe it might be". Seems the perfect, accurate word for this type of story. NathanLee (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with NathanLee the Noah's Ark story is one of many deluge myths see the article Deluge (mythology).Teapotgeorge 14:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Remark: I hate the myth box. It is too wide for many browsers, and squashes the text. If consensus for mythology develops, is the myth box really necessary? I also think that the box is against policy for other reasons: see Misplaced Pages:No disclaimers in articles. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In an ideal world it wouldn't be necessary, but the ongoing "my definition says xyz" means it is a bit of a necessary evil. I'd like to just see a comment stating to refer to the discusson page rather than reverting.. Similar to the mohammed one on images.. NathanLee (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In passing, regarding consensus on mythology, Noah's Ark is one of the few featured articles promoted by the Mythology Wikiproject. Perhaps someone from there should be involved here before we strip one of their achievements from them? --PLUMBAGO 17:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated many times before, this dispute has dragged on ad nauseam and ad infinitum for years, and I am more than prepared to take it to arbitration right now. It will NEVER be acceptable for a supposedly "neutral" encyclopedia to pick and choose one of the living religions and declare the one-sided POV that what it believes is "mythology", telling readers how they must analyze their own beliefs. Let readers come to their own independent conclusions, per WP:NPOV. From the beginning, policy has been that if a word is ambiguous or contentious, it must be replaced with a more neutral synonym as a compromise acceptable to all significant viewpoints. So, if you claim you are using "mythology" in a somehow "innocent" or "benign" way and that it means "sacred narrative", then don't use the offensive word, say "sacred narrative" instead if that's really what you really mean. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea, except that sooner or later "sacred narrative" will be flagged up as a POV term and stripped from the article. Until "myth" has its primary definition changed in the Oxford English Dictionary, it's the word to use here. Finally, as I've noted before, many adherents to said living religion quite happily consider Noah's Ark not merely mythological but actually only metaphorically true. You seem to be giving them fairly short shrift here. --PLUMBAGO 17:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What nonsense. Even the OED acknowledges that the term "myth" / "mythology" has also ALWAYS had a definition implying "false"; you couldn't find a better example of an "ambiguous word" (weasel word) when applied to a current belief. In fact, up until the 2001 edition of the OED, the meaning of "false" was the "primary" definition in all previous editions of the OED, and this makes much more sense, because the usages where "myth" and "mythology" means "false" are clearly attested far earlier than the revisionist, (still somewhat nebulous) definition for it that is being pushed here for ulterior reasons. Even if you quibble about which should be the "primary" definition, it is still "ambiguous", ie a word with more than one meaning, that is liable to be offensive and confusing no matter how many disclaimers you tack onto it. Just use a different word for whatever it is you are trying to say. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Plumbago: you are incorrect according to wikipedia policy, and your appeal to dictionary usage fails. Read this: "Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition. For example: "The Peoples Temple is a cult, which..."" -- Misplaced Pages tells us NOT to use these POV terms and "myth" falls precisely within this policy. Therefore it cannot be included in this article. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 17:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with Nathan. I have proved from Misplaced Pages files a number of time for him how the word doesn't belong, and he refuses to answer. Silly Rabbit has now also shown the ugly disclaimer box to be anti-wiki as well.

What if I were to think according to Nathan's pov reasoning? Then I should be able to put in there the word "true." (because that's my pov)... OR we could just LEAVE it as it is: NPOV!! T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 17:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The article needs to establish some context, so I've modified the lead in an attempt to do this. Also, the myth box really doesn't belong in article space, so I've removed it. Finally, I moved the mention of Genesis down a little so that once context has been established, the reader gets straight into what the article is about. The intro sentence now reads:

In Christian mythology, Noah's Ark was a large vessel built at God's command to save Noah, his family, and stock of all the world's animals from the Deluge.

Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that might be clearer, one thing: the story is part of Jewish and Islamic mythology also. Not exclusively christian. NathanLee (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Changed it to "In Jewish, Christian and Islamic mythology, Noah's Ark was a large vessel built at God's command to save Noah, his family, and stock of all the world's animals from the Deluge." NathanLee (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

'Mythology' doesn't belong in the intro. This is "strong statement" which is offensive to many people. The article says "according to" Genesis, which is sufficient. The reader will probably already have a POV on the historicity of Genesis. Denier commentary can come further down in the article. 01:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, it's sufficient for people who know what Genesis is. How does the following sentence sound to you:

Duat (or Tuat) (also called Akert, Amenthes, or Neter-khertet), according to the Amduat, is the underworld.

Or do you prefer:

In Egyptian mythology, Duat (or Tuat) (also called Akert, Amenthes, or Neter-khertet) is the underworld.

I don't think any reasonable person would argue for the former. Also, your reasoning borders on censorship, and seems to rely on a readers POV somehow. Hardly rock solid in my opinion. I prefer the version given by NathanLee, or perhaps we can be a bit more succinct and simply write Abrahamic mythology? Though I'm not sure if that term is widely used. Ben (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(indent) rossnixon: That's a very niche view and "causing offence to some people" is not a reason (or feasible) not to have something in an article at any rate. It's hardly a "strong statement" when it means a range from true to false. That's like saying "May or may not be true" is a strong statement. Read the definition. Literal interpretation of creation stories is (so the sources in the article say) an abandoned practice by scientists and biblical scholars alike. Please put back what you reverted. We aren't writing articles with assumptions about genesis, that's the job of the article. In short: read the definition of mythology and while you're at it Christian mythology..

Ben: yeah, it would be nice to group the three, but I haven't really come across that term much.. "Judeo-christian and Islamic mythology" ? NathanLee (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Ben (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with putting in the edit that NathanLee wants (and some of you keep turning a blind eye to) is that it is breaking some major wikipedia policies: WP:NPOV, WP:MORALIZE, WP:WORDS, and Misplaced Pages:No disclaimers in articles. These need to be honestly answered and not just ram-rodded through. Also what needs answering is why Genesis being a myth or not belongs in this article? But please, first answer why you believe that wiki-policy deserves to be broken in this article. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 04:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the proposed edit conflicts with any of the policies you mentioned. I noticed you quoted Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective from the religion section of WP:WTA, but we're not labelling a group. We're simply establishing some context for this article. Mentioning Genesis doesn't get that done (however I think it should be mentioned in the lead, just not straight away). I've given two example lead sentences above from another similar wiki page, each reflecting the versions proposed here. Since it's a topic none of us are likely to be familiar with, I'm sure you can see there is a big difference and agree that the second example is better? In that case, I don't see why this article should be treated any differently.

From the message you left on my talk page, I know you don't have a problem with the word myth, and I haven't accused you of that. I also agree that any detailed discussions of Genesis do not belong here. However, we're not trying to do that, we're simply trying to establish some context for readers unfamiliar with the article topic. Ben (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And what about the other policies? I think that it's ridiculous to have to require that every time the Book of Genesis is mentioned, that it needs to have "the mythology of" in front of it. That's not true. Leave that up to the main article of Book of Genesis to describe and allow the wiki-reader to click the wiki-link to read more if he/she wants to. We don't call the Qu'ran, "the mythological book Qu'ran" every time we talk about it -- we simply call it the Qur'an (go ahead, click the wiki-link and check it out yourself) -- and we the user make his/her own judgment on the matter. So here, since the article is not about the Book of Genesis, is simply needs to be called, "Genesis." Done. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 05:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, the word shouldn't precede the title of any of those books. However, the suggested edit is:

"In Judeo-Christian and Islamic mythology, Noah's Ark was a large vessel built at God's command to save Noah, his family, and stock of all the world's animals from the Deluge."

This edit, like the second Egyptian mythology example I gave above, doesn't rely on the reader knowing the names of the sacred books of a particular religion. Genesis should still be mentioned in the lead (and it is in the next paragraph), but not until Noah's Ark is discussed, including giving it some context. What do you think? Cheers, Ben (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Your edits will just keep getting reverted by people who want the niche view of literal creationists to be the prime one.

Tjbergsma: so are you happy that this actually IS mythology? Why not let, as ben suggested, the article link to Christian mythology as that will explain the thing far better. It's seeming obvious that your intent is to bury the idea that this story is mythological. This story IS a mythological story isn't it? NathanLee (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Also: the myth box is not a disclaimer. Read the definition of what they say a disclaimer is] (similar inability to read definitions that has lead you to where you are now). As for the arguments for "offence": wikipedia is not censored. NathanLee (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There will always exist misconceptions (I think there is even a list on Misplaced Pages detailing some common ones), but we shouldn't resort to a template box every time someone jumps on a talk page with one. I think a misconception over a single word is fairly minor, a template box describing terminology used in an article isn't encyclopaedic and having one feels like we need to defend the article, so my preference is to keep the myth box out of the article. Ben (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

At this stage it's kinda irrelevant with the stream of "I don't like mythology in the title because it offends me" reverters who pop up and then go off to revert other creationist articles. NathanLee (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I think only person claimed that. Tjbergsma's objection on the other hand was to the phrase "the mythology of the book of Genesis", which I agree with (perhaps for different reasons though, I'm not sure), as opposed to the word mythology outright. I think the new opening sentence above deals with everyone's concerns though, but I'd like to wait for Tjbergsma to weigh in before making any changes. Ben (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, I also agree with everything Tjbergsma has already stated several times on this page, that using the loaded terms "myth" or "mythology" to describe something a number of significant religions today teach, is an "outside term" and an unacceptable violation of policy because it is POV pushing. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:WTA#Myth_and_legend,

Myth has multiple technical meanings in different fields, and several everyday meanings:

• In sociology, it refers to a narrative that is important for a group, and may or may not be true, but is not verifiable.
• In folkloristics, it means a sacred narrative that is believed to be true.
• In common use, it usually refers to a narrative that is believed to be false.

.. the common meaning should neither be used, nor assumed.

The word is perfectly valid here, and POV has nothing to do with its use. Your own POV seems to be the reason for the argument though. Ben (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, binding arbitration is required

This same identical debate has reared its ugly head so often for the past 3 years, that I fear binding arbitration should be required to determine if we as a project are going to distinguish between the living, significant religions and dead mythologies, like other major encyclopedias, or if we are going to lump them all in together as "mythology" like a propaganda tool. There is a continual and persistent effort of a few editors to label the Old Testament, and the scriptures of various and select other world religions, as "mythology" - despite the fact that many find this term offensive and would rather see a more neutral-sounding term in its place. The history of the word "mythology" amply proves that aside from describing dead religions, it is also used to attack living religions. They will not listen to any number of other editors who plead with them to be more reasonable; they are convinced that no perspective other than their own could be "neutral", and are uninterested in compromise, and are seemingly incapable of seeing beyond the end of their noses and realizing that different belief systems exist other than their own.

WIKIPEDIA MUST REMAIN NEUTRAL ON THE SUBJECT OF RELIGION AND STRICTLY REPORT ON WHAT PEOPLE TODAY ACTUALLY DO BELIEVE, NOT TRY TO "INFLUENCE" THEIR BELIEFS IN VIOLATION OF EVERY POLICY -- as the very userpages of "TeapotGeorge" and other editors make clear they wish to do, throwing their own neutrality and impartiality right out the window with personal templates blatantly calling for the demise of all religion. Many are those who would hijack the project and make it attack one set of beliefs while endorsing someone else's set of beliefs; some editors are bold enough to state that this is their goal on their own userpages, and should not be believed when they say they are "neutral". PLEASE let us take this to arb-com. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that you seem to be judging other peoples edits based on their world view, and not on the quality of the edit. If this is a three year issue, have you considered that the problem might be on your end? Either a suggested edit should be made, or it shouldn't, and that should be independent of the person suggesting it. You demand neutrality, but seek to distinguish between sets of articles based on your own or other peoples beliefs. There is no dispute that the word mythology is correct and proper, and yet you claim personal offence and seek to censor it's usage here. Can censorship based on personal offence be justified using Misplaced Pages's policies? I doubt it. Ben (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not "personal" offense; it is simply offense to major significant worldviews. Voltaire was one of the first, in his attacks on the Church, to declare that the Bible was "mythology"; Robespierre enforced this viewpoint during the Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution. Despite their best efforts, the word of the Bible still represents a significant viewpoint today for many faiths, just as do the Quran, Book of Mormon, etc. How can it possibly be "neutral" for wikipedia to enforce the same thing that the French Revolution and the Communists did? This is pure foolishness. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages, Voltaire's FREE legacy ....? Ben (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us a reference or two on how the word is of "offense to major significant worldviews"? As far as I can see it can only be of offense to literal biblical creationists who don't know what "mythology" means (the definition has been stated time and time again and is in the myth box). I'll remind you that it is VERY MUCH wikipedia policy to not censor and that "argument ad populum" is a fallacious (nonsense) argument. That's what you're asking for (e.g. don't say this because it offends me). Your views on this are very much a NICHE view. NathanLee (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it's already been determined that wikipedia must treat all religions equally, living and dead. It would be dishonest, impractical and illogical to treat them otherwise. Someone following something doesn't change the characteristics of the stories. Given this story is one of hundreds if not thousands of flood stories: why should it be treated differently just because you say so. NathanLee (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

One final point: Til Eulenspiegel, you don't even KNOW WHAT MYTHOLOGY MEANS. From your comments above you defined it as meaning the same as "dead religion" or some word which magically destroys faith which it is not under any definition I can find. Certainly doesn't match what the word means in academic, dictionary, media and encyclopaedic terms. NathanLee (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with everything you've just said and find it to be your own perspective and pov, not any actual policy; and I believe the opposing position has been made abundantly clear and shown to be rooted in NPOV policy - with plenty of quotes readily available from lots of historical (yet POV) sources utilising the very same offensive term ("mythology") specifically to attack and suppress living religions. So, because this 3-year debate shown no signs of conclusion, I am going to open up a medcab case some time in the near future as a preliminary to the arbitration process. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you show somewhere reliable that treats mythology as per your definition? The earlier "the pope said so" turned out false (as per my evidence below). So tell me, where is this "significant worldview" that the term "christian mythology" cannot exist? I've shown that the pope doesn't give a toss, that the article states a literal approach was abandoned a century ago (with references).. And you've got what exactly? Your own POV and a few other similarly un-referenced lackies on here that also just know where the revert button is. So please, where's the definition, evidence or something other than "because I say so". It only shows no conclusion because 3 years and it still hasn't penetrated your head, or else you've sustained ignorance of basic definitions choosing instead to keep edit warring over your POV (with no references). Without evidence your side of the argument is pure niche personal POV. NathanLee (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You're attacking a strawman, because I have never taken the position that "Christian mythology" cannot exist. My position has only been that "mythology" does not include any part of any living religion's sacred scriptures. We can't state that the Quran is myth either - let readers decide what definition to use for it. Of course there is plenty of indisputable "Christian mythology", but it is concerned with extra-Biblical legends, such as mostly what is in that category now, eg Sword of Saint Peter etc. We have no authority on behalf of any Church to declare a book like Genesis "uncanonical", when to date not even one Church has, as far as I know - they all describe it as "canonical" and their position that it is not "mythology" should be clear. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"mythology" does not include any part of any living religion's sacred scriptures.

That's absurd. I'd like to see a decent reference that provides this exclusion. Until you can do so, your position should not influence this article. Ben (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, why don't you try looking up the topic "mythology" in any mainstream encyclopedia??? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What? Like Britannica? "a symbolic narrative, usually of unknown origin and at least partly traditional, that ostensibly relates actual events and that is especially associated with religious belief. It is distinguished from symbolic behaviour (cult, ritual) and symbolic places or objects (temples, icons). As with all religious symbolism, there is no attempt to justify mythic narratives or even to render them plausible. Every myth presents itself as an authoritative, factual account, no matter how much the narrated events are at variance with natural law or ordinary experience. By extension from this primary religious meaning, the word myth may also be used more loosely to refer to an ideological belief when that belief is the object of a quasi-religious faith" Gee.. Sounds like it doesn't mean what you think it means. Care to provide a mainstream encyclopaedic reference to back up your *cough*made up*cough* definition. NathanLee (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, why don't you ... - Til Eulenspiegel.

Er, why don't you provide the reference, instead of asking others to find them for you? Ben (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And if you keep reading the EB article, does it discuss any living religions' scriptures as "mythology", or does it restrict itself to discussing what are mostly former religions of the past that virtually no-one today believes in or takes seriously?

You don't have far to go to find a plethora of views showing how duplicitous a term it is. Try here for starters, you get a whole buch all on one page: http://www.answers.com/topic/myth Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's obvious now that you can't provide any references to back your position, or else you would have stopped blindly pointing in random directions for us to look and simply provided some. To completely bury your argument though, I have this from a separate EB article (look up creation myth, I don't have a link sorry), Thus, for example, all theology and speculation concerning creation in the Christian community are based on the myth of creation in the biblical book of Genesis .. Ben (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Is that the best you can come up with when I give you a link? Blindly pretend that I haven't provided any references? Here it is again: http://www.answers.com/topic/myth It has everything you're looking for, including several RSS that say it implies falsehood, several that give no other meaning, a prominent quote saying "mythology means a religion that nobody believes in anymore", and finally, a wikipedia article stating: "A myth in popular use is something that is widely believed to be false. This usage, which is often pejorative, arose from labeling the religious myths and beliefs of other cultures as being incorrect, but it has spread to cover non-religious beliefs as well. Because of this usage, many people take offense when the religious narratives they believe to be true are called myths", There you have it from wikipedia - "many people take offense" - yet now you try to imply I am the only one, resorting to an ad hominem type of argument against one editor. Actually many editors beside myself have agreed that it is offensive. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You haven't provided any references, you quoted from a Misplaced Pages article that talks about common usage in instances like "urban myth". Did you miss the quote I gave above that says we're not supposed to use the common meaning? And how does your Misplaced Pages quote back up your claim that mythology and 'live' religions are mutually exclusive? Finally, as if Misplaced Pages is a reliable source. To that end, I've picked up a book on mythology here and I have another quote for you that directly addresses your claim: "Most readers would not be surprised to find that the biblical stories of creation and Eden are often considered mythological" - Mythology: Myths, Legends, & Fantasies, Janet Parker (Editor), ISBN: 0785817905, pg. 330. Stop playing the victim (where was the ad hominem by the way?), and stop wasting our time please. You've not only failed to provide a reliable source to back your claim, you've had sources presented to you that give a specific example of what you say doesn't happen (the EB article above) or say the exact opposite of your claim (the book above). Ben (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how you pick out one of the many meanings and then label it "offensive" (still no link on any reference that claims offence, which makes that "original research" on your behalf). I'll state again: WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT CENSOR lest of all for niche views. Not causing offence is impossible for one and not at all part of policy. e.g. Mohammed's happy snap showing up in the Mohammed page. Also: as far as SCIENCE and HISTORIC RECORD are concerned: this story is fiction. The school of thought that believes otherwise is "pseudoscience" which, by WP policy is specifically not to be represented as correct. NathanLee (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh and to clarify: that bit about a myth being a religion no one believes in is a quote of someone, NOT any of the definitions. NathanLee (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

So what? The fact remains that numerous editors (and published sources) have indicated it is offensive; you two seem utterly uninterested in any sort of compromise; thus it is time for dispute resolution. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC) Note: I have seen several dozens of editors over the past 3 years who agreed that calling the Bible or other religions' texts "myth(ology)" is needlessly offensive. I've just added a new tag to my own userpage to show where I stand. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. This argument seems to keep going. I do not even know where to begin reading to catch up on it. NathanLee: You are arguing two ways which makes me suspicious. First you say that "myth" can be either true or untrue, but then you clearly imply in some of your posts that why you want the word there because you really thing Noah's Ark is not true and you want others to think the same thing. The common usage of myth is "fictitious story," (also in many dictionaries and thesaurus' which have "non-fiction" as its antonym!) and no ugly Misplaced Pages box is going to change people's minds on that. Has Noah's Ark been proven beyond doubt to have been untrue? Not that I know of -- floods occur many places and ANE literature often used the word "world" to refer just to their known lands: In this way, Noah's Ark has never been proven to be untrue. In fact, the common theme of a great flood in different ANE literature lends credibility to its real historical occurrence in some shape or form.

Umm... I'm just in favor of not pushing any buttons and leaving it as it is. To me it simply is not necessary. Why put it there? Its presence only gives the gratification of feeling that "your side" won over the other side. It doesn't add any new information that people won't already have in their mind anyways, so: Why?. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 22:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the use of the term myth is correct no matter which way you look at it: scientific evidence suggests the story as written did not happen (I am evidence based so science is a measure of true for me, people just "believing" does not make something more or less true for me), but the definition that says that it is "a religious narrative which may or may not be true that some people believe to be true" is also correct.. And of course a myth may be based in part on true events or might be entirely true. I'm saying it works either way and is correct to label it as such in all cases (well.. except for your "dead religion" quote treated as definition). I'll refer you to the specific place that says "the common usage of myth is NOT to be assumed or used" here. It also mentions equal treatment so in other words: this exemption because it is believed by people does not mean we can't use it for christianity like we do for every other religion.

I would say that the idea that "just leave it there" is violated by you in your reverting. To me it is important because it adds clarity to the article because we are then aware that this is a mythological story (as opposed to say Battle of waterloo or similar.. NathanLee (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Tjbergsma, can you please comment on the proposal below your last edit in the above section? Thanks, Ben (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Pope john paul II's view on whether genesis should be taken literally

Here's a telling article on a book put out by Pope john paul II: Book provides pope's views on modern Bible scholarship And a bit of the article: Along the way, "Memory and Identity: Conversations at the Dawn of a Millennium" (Rizzoli) offers glimpses of the pope's attitudes toward modern biblical scholarship, leaning left on the Old Testament and leaning right on the New Testament.

In the Old Testament, Chapter 2 of Genesis is "the work of the Jahwist redactor," the pope tells us. ("Redactor" is a fancy word for editor.) He thus approves biblical critics' central theory that the Bible's first five books were compiled long after Moses' time from four strands of material, one known as "Jahwist."

That view rejects the 1906 declaration from the Vatican's Pontifical Biblical Commission, which condemned claims that the five books "are not of Mosaic authorship but were put together from sources mostly of post-Mosaic date." The commission said its view was supported by "many passages of both Testaments, the unbroken unanimity of the Jewish people... the constant tradition of the church" and internal indications in the texts.

The pope here allies himself with most current Roman Catholic specialists and in opposition to those who hold the older belief that the Pentateuch was mostly the work of Moses himself - Orthodox Jews, fundamentalist Protestants, many evangelical Protestants and a few conservative Catholics.

Since 1906, the Pontifical Biblical Commission has moved markedly leftward. The 1993 decree on Bible interpretation it presented to John Paul was less worried about liberal theories than the "fundamentalist approach" to the Bible. It warned that the latter is "dangerous," can "deceive" people, offers "illusory" interpretations, expresses "false certitude" and confuses the "divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations." Fundamentalism "invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide," the papal advisers charged. In short: literal interpretation of the bible (e.g. all this rubbish about offensive to have it labelled as mythology) is not even backed by the pope. It's funny how it sounds like the pope wouldn't mind the term "mythology" for the stories in the OT, yet we've got editors who are more offended about it than the pope. From the discussions on here it's obvious (as the article says) a "fundamentalist approach" to the bible being "intellectual suicide". NathanLee (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought the current Pope had written books defending the position that the Bible is not mythology; but even if he thinks the Bible is mythology, the last time I checked, the Pope does not speak for all Christians or many other significant viewpoints. For example there are much clearer statements by various Orthodox clergy, that the Bible is not mythological at all, and is historical and what the Orthodox Church teaches as history. So your comment is just more POV and biased rhetoric. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Aah, I see why you have trouble with logical arguments: Here I supply a link (and quote from it) to an article that states what I've put up there. You reply with "well I think otherwise and anyhow, the pope's not as important as the viewpoint I think someone said". Fine: it should be easy for you to supply EVIDENCE, particularly if, as you claim, commonly people would find the dictionary definition of mythology inaccurate in this case.

Stop bleating about POV this and POV that when out of the two of us I'm the only one who's been talking about references (this one, the ones in the article, the ones in Jewish mythology, Christian mythology, Islamic mythology etc). Either supply them or take some time out of editing and learn what is expected from wikipedia (which is more than "Til Eulenspiegel thinks"). You're running on pure opinion and trying to battle facts and references (that's why you're doing a piss poor job in case you're wondering). Perhaps I'm wrong but you speak for and to a far smaller number of people than a pope (you know, the head of the catholic religion who speaks on Earth for god to all catholics and sets out final word on how god's word is to be interpreted when a question arises). NathanLee (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Opening sentence

Template:RFCreli

The opening sentence needs to give some context. There are two opening sentences being argued over and I'd like to develop consensus one way or the other. They are:

1. Current: Noah's Ark, according to the Book of Genesis, was a large vessel ...
2. Proposed: In Judeo-Christian and Islamic mythology, Noah's Ark was a large vessel ...

Since most people who look at this page are familiar with the Genesis, the differences might not be so clear, so allow me to offer a similar example (pulled directly from another Misplaced Pages page) that isn't likely to be as familiar:

• Equivalent to the first: Duat (or Tuat) (also called Akert, Amenthes, or Neter-khertet), according to the Amduat, is the underworld.
• Equivalent to the second: In Egyptian mythology, Duat (or Tuat) (also called Akert, Amenthes, or Neter-khertet) is the underworld.

Discussion

I feel the second establishes context for the reader very clearly on account of it not relying on existing knowledge of the topic. At least one editor here, Til Eulenspiegel, has objected on the basis that the proposed change uses the word mythology, which according to them is not accurate. Til has been asked to provide some sort of evidence for this from a reliable source, and has yet to do so. He/she has, however, quoted from another Misplaced Pages page which discusses common uses of the term (for instance, the phrase urban myth). The assumption of this meaning is expressly discouraged at Misplaced Pages:WTA#Myth_and_legend. On the other hand, it has been demonstrated that the terminology is not only standard fare on Misplaced Pages, but that the usage has been adopted by other encyclopaedias (all theology and speculation concerning creation in the Christian community are based on the myth of creation in the biblical book of Genesis .. - Encyclopaedia Britannica) and reliable sources have been presented stating the exact opposite of Til's claims (Most readers would not be surprised to find that the biblical stories of creation and Eden are often considered mythological - Mythology: Myths, Legends, & Fantasies, Janet Parker (Editor), ISBN: 0785817905, pg. 330.).

I think Til is allowing his/her own prejudices get in the way of reason here, so instead of arguing seemingly without end, I've started this RFC in the hope we can settle on one side or the other for good. Ben (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: As this dispute goes back for years and involves numerous editors on both sides of the dispute, I've already opened dispute resolution process; Please see Medcab case link at top of this page. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to participate if necessary, but at the least this section should give third parties a quick overview of the arguments on both sides. Ben (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

A tally to gauge consensus

The current wording, #1

• Support - Who dont know what is Genesis can follow the link. And to describe the Noah's Ark as "mythology" (implicit in the proposed links of #2) is a POV. A ntv (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - for reasons already stated; but see compromise proposal below Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The proposed wording, #2

• Support - per above. Ben (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - as per above. Comment: it would be helpful to expand the pool of editors for comment, otherwise it's just the usual suspects like me (e.g. at least get some input from Wikiproject Mythology, for which Noak's Ark is a FA). --PLUMBAGO 00:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - accurate, consistent terminology and clearly differentiates from "historical account" NathanLee (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion

A compromise has occurred to me, inspired by the WP:NPOV page. We can tweak the wording and tell both significant views in the intro neutrally:

• In Abrahamic religions, Noah's Ark was a large vessel... While many modern scholars treat the story within Judeo-Christian or Islamic mythology, there are still today a number of denominations and sects within the framework of all major Abrahamic faiths who continue to teach the deluge as a historical event.

This fact should also be explained for the benefit of the reader within the article: There are various denominations and sects that take a more historical view of the Old Testament and/or Quran accounts; or in the case of the Orthodox Tewahedo Church, the Old Testament in addition to Jubilees and I Enoch (the latter, they teach, was written before the Deluge.) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt at a compromise, but there is massive WP:UNDUE problems with the second half, and you're introducing awkward language in an attempt to censor words you don't like in the first half. It's unfortunate you don't like the word, but Noah's Ark is a part of the mythology by definition. Ben (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There you go again arguing that it is "UNDUE" to mention how religious groups interpret their own scriptures; apparently it must be interpreted for them by others... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

We simply report what is reported elsewhere, we don't interpret anything for anyone. Since this is already dealt with later in the introduction, there is no point arguing over this (or trying to introduce another version of it in the lead). Ben (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we tweak the wording to give both positions? Once again you seem uninterested in compromise and only want to present one position that many find offensive and disagree with, as if it were undisputed fact. Tell both sides if you're going to tell one. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

How about "In the mythology of Abrahamic religions". Mythology already covers "both sides" and the literally true interpretation of this story is a minority viewpoint (as I've shown: not even the pope sounds like he supports). NathanLee (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nathan, I suggest you do some study on the subject of genre in biblical studies - "myth" and "history" are not the only possibilities. Genesis 1-11 has some points which identify it as myth - it concerns supernatural events and has a theological message - but it also has points which are more commonly found in history-writing, notably the preoccupation with chronology. (Myths don't usually bother telling you just when the events happened, but Genesis is very clear that the Flood came in a certain year after the creation of the world). Jacobsen (who he? Find out!) calls the Noah story mythic history, for this very reason. It's also interesting that modern scholars don't cal the Mesopotamian flood stories myths - they call them epics (the epic of Gilgamesh, of Atrahasis, etc), because they hardly mention the gods - just like the Noah story, in which God has only a walk-on part. PiCo (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi PiCo. That's a good point about the chronology, though it's rather circumstantial. Anyway, I suspect that "epic" may carry as much baggage as "myth" (and possibly more). Either way, we'd need a good source to refer to the Epic of Noah's Ark!  :-) Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 10:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Aah, since when does something listing out chronology make it not mythological. Could you provide some sort of definition that backs this up? Sounds like any story which mentions an ordering of births/deaths is magically exempt from the definition. Again: this idea doesn't seem to match any definition out there that we've looked at in this discussion, but by all means: post up something.. NathanLee (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose this compromise. I dont see any need to define the Ark as a myth or as history. The Ark comes from the Genesis, that is a book. If the Genesis is a myth, a half myth or history shall be discussed in Genesis Article. Here we shall simply state that the Ark is firstly found in such a book. Who dont know what Genesis is can follow the link, or at least we can add something like "Genesis, an important text in Abrahaic religions". (for Til Eulenspiegel: I know perfectly that the Ark is mentioned also in 1Enoch that probably narrates a older version of Noah's story than Genesis itself, but to link the Ark to 1Enoch is WP:UNDUE and which book is the original is not a matter of faith even for Ethiopeans) A ntv (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the articles Christian mythology, Jewish mythology and Islamic mythology discuss this topic. Hence the desire to link to them in the lead.How about "anyone who doesn't know what mythology means can refer to those articles"? But perhaps you'd go and enhance the genesis article to inlude a clear statement that it is about a collection of mythological stories? (didn't "genesis doesn't mention mythology" get used as an argument as to why this article couldn't use the term also? Can't quite figure out what is acceptable to you guys). NathanLee (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Mediator's Notes (Mediation Cabal)

I am still waiting for contact from person(s)involved in the Mediation Cabal case: Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-11-28_Noah's_Ark so therefore will not yet go into detail untill all the facts are carefully analysed. I have extracted the following from the case notes:

1. Problems are arriving due to policy being interpreted in the wrong way;

Neutrality is therefore an aspect not being followed, Conflict and arguements are therefore occuring and arriving because of the individual interpretations. 

1. Individual opinions and thoughts of other editors are effecting neutrality;

The length of the disputes have therefore brought on strong emotions against certain editors.

1. External sources are not being correctly cited;

Citation of facts needs to be followed.

I will go further into detail when I have further analysed facts and observed.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Bible articles
• Unknown-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• FA-Class Turkey articles
• Unknown-importance Turkey articles
• All WikiProject Turkey pages
• FA-Class Religion articles
• Unknown-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• FA-Class Judaism articles
• High-importance Judaism articles
• FA-Class Islam-related articles
• Low-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• FA-Class Mythology articles
• High-importance Mythology articles