Talk:Gilgamesh flood myth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Should there be a section comparing this flood myth to the Hebrew flood myth? They seem to have a lot of similarities. Also, while this myth is referenced in the Epic of Gilgamesh, it's not really his myth. It was told to Gilgamesh by Utnapishtim. Perhaps a name change is in order? Just a few thoughts. --clpo13_(talk) 02:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Deluge (mythology) page links to the following two sites that could be turned into a Wiki page with a table of quotes from the 5 flood myths: Ziusudra, Atrahasis, Gilgamesh, Genesis, and Berossus.

• table with parallels
• Parallels between versions of the Ancient Near East flood myths.

The title of this page "Gilgamesh flood myth" is just a short way of saying "the flood myth tablet XI in Standard versions of the Epic of Gilgamesh". Writing a story in which one character repeats an older story to a second character is just a literary technique of no importance. Greensburger 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research

The entire alternative translations section is original research. Doug Weller (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed my personal opinions and cited references to publications by two or three scholars that contain conflicting translations. Reporting conflicts that already exist in the scholarly literature is not original research. Greensburger (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

POV fork

This whole article is a POV fork from the Epic of Gilgamesh and Deluge (mythology) to promote the ideas on the websites cited in the external links: www.noahs-ark-flood.com / www.flood-myth.com - that the Biblical flood was really a 2900 BC flood in Sumer, and Noah was really a Sumerian king "Ziusudra". Believe it or not - read that web site. IansAwesomePizza (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the references you objected to. Greensburger (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But that doesn't remove the problem of it being a fork. "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies."

I'm not sure where to go from here, but if it is a fork, then it probably should be merged or deleted. Doug Weller (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Alternative Translations section presents the usual translation for selected lines in the Gilgamesh flood myth (a source is cited for each) and then presents an alternative translation that at least one scholar supports (another source is cited for each). Isn't that neutral POV? Merge with what? This is the only page that presents alternative translations of selected lines in the Gilgamesh flood myth. To delete it would be a POV fork "to avoid negative viewpoints or facts". It is a fact that there are alternative translations in the scholarly literature. Greensburger (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So why isn't it in the main article? Doug Weller (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For the same reason Immortality is not merged with the Epic of Gilgamesh article; for the same reason Gilgamesh (the king) is not merged with Epic of Gilgamesh; for the same reason Alexander Graham Bell is not merged with the Telephone article - because the focus is distinct. The flood myth is only one sub theme in only one of the Gilgamesh flood myth tablets. The Epic of Gilgamesh is largely about his quest for immortality, not about his kingship, and not about the flood myth. There is a relationship of course, but the flood myth discussion is not related to the immortality discussion. If the flood myth material were put in the Epic article, the discussion of each of the other tablets would have to be expanded to balance the Epic article and it would be too large and lack focus. Greensburger (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Immortality is not merged with Epic of Gilgamesh because they are obviously very distinct topics, as are all the other topics you list. You are right in calling this page a distinct "focus" - it is a POV fork, and a fringe one at that. The Epic of Gilgamesh already has a rather thorough treatment of its flood myth episode, and the place for comparing and contrasting all the different Middle Eastern flood myths is on the Deluge (mythology) page, not on a special Gilgamesh page. IansAwesomePizza (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What now?Doug Weller (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There are only 3 sentences on the flood myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh article which is hardly "thorough treatment". The focus of the present article is on the Gilgamesh flood myth and it literary dependence on Atrahasis and how some words changed meaning during editing and translation. It is not about the immortality theme or flood myths in general. It has neutral POV and is based on books by Prof. Andrew George, Prof. Tigay, Profs. Lambert & Millard, Prof. Parpola, none of them "fringe", and books by Kovacs, Green, and other translations. It is not a POV fork promoting one POV. If you object to specific sentences, then specify which sentences and I fill fix any mistakes. Greensburger (talk) 07:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know where you count 3 sentences on the flood myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh - the tablet 11 section is longer than any other and has far more than 3 sentences.

You are again right in saying this article is not about flood myths in general - that's the Deluge (mythology) article. This article's purpose is to show how this flood story diverges from a preferred reading derived from the Atra-Hasis version - a river flood, a certain barge etc. What would be a compare-and-contract is divided into two sections "Sentences copied" and "Material altered", and doesn't include any other versions.

All this article does is present arguments against how the Gilgamesh episode differs from the Atra-Hasis flood story, and its unique reading as presented in the "Alternative translations" section. This page should simply be redirected to the Epic of Gilgamesh.

IansAwesomePizza (talk)

The tablet 11 section is nearly all about the immortality theme. These are the only sentences about the flood myth in the tablet 11 section:

"Utnapishtim tells him about the great flood."

"His story is a summary of the story of Atrahasis (see also Gilgamesh flood myth)"

You say that the present article should be redirected to the Epic of Gilgamesh. What relevance does Atrahasis have to tablet 1? None. What relevance does Atrahasis have to tablet 2? None. What relevance does Atrahasis have to tablet 3? None. What relevance does Atrahasis have to tablet 4? None. What relevance does Atrahasis have to tablet 5? None. What relevance does Atrahasis have to tablet 6? None. What relevance does Atrahasis have to tablet 7? None. What relevance does Atrahasis have to tablet 8? None. What relevance does Atrahasis have to tablet 9? None. What relevance does Atrahasis have to tablet 10? None. What relevance does Atrahasis have to tablet 12? None. The present article has practically zero relevance to the Epic of Gilgamesh article. Greensburger (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it has 0 relevance to anything but to promote a POV. IansAwesomePizza (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) So, AfD as POV fork? Doug Weller (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, AfD as a POV fork. IansAwesomePizza (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a POV fork. I presented both sides and cited reliable sources for both sides and therefore this article complies with the NPOV rule. You did not specify exactly what sentences you believe to be non-neutral. You are attempting to impose your own non-neutral POV by attempting to delete anything you disagree with. This article presents existing differences of opinion among ANE scholars. To take sides by falsely labeling it a POV fork is your NPOV violation. I suggest that you focus on how to improve this article rather than looking for ways to destroy it. Greensburger (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1