Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Robert Moore

I have a question please. Is the article by Robert Moore, who is not a researcher, a sufficiently qualitative source to validate a general claim like "There is no scientific evidence that Noah's Ark existed as it is described in the Bible"?

Thanks to the respondents. Theshumai (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Theshumai, Moore's work is published in a scientific journal, so I would say that makes it a reliable source. We could find many more sources if need be. The point is: even if the ark existed, it has clearly not been found. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

And in addition, what do you mean Moore is not a researcher? The article is very extensive, the result of much research, and Moore is reporting the findings of his studies. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Google Maps

Has anyone looked at Mount Ararat on Google Maps recently? There is a major shape visible on the South East slope that needs investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.206.176.154 (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an investigative service I'm afraid. You'll have to find a real world body to look into that. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

BCE and CE vs BC and AD

Although it is an interesting academic exercise, BCE is still not the measure for dates used by the majority of people using the Julian calendar. The article and all other articles should respect the original BC and AD references and changes made should be seen as vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanerasmus2006 (talk • contribs)

@Deanerasmus2006: See our guide on era styles at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Era_style. In general, styles should stay consistent and should not be changed arbitrarily. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Very Minor Punctuation Mistake

"Research shows a literal Noah's Ark could not be practical,." The comma needs removing. I'd do it myself if the page weren't locked. 173.215.118.193 (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Theroadislong (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Babylonian Great Flood

I included my summary of a book by Irving Finkel (2014) in the section about the Ark's geometry. This adds a second paragraph to what had been just one. Irving Finkel was already cited in this article twice, this change brings his total to three. I think this contribution should be included for those who are interested in the variety of ancient texts that are relevant to what is surely among mankind's oldest and most widely shared stories. I am a fan of the author but in no way affiliated with him or the British Museum. I also decided to capitalize the section headings in a few places. Thus, 'Ark's Geometry' instead of 'Ark's geometry' and 'Mesopotamian Precursors' instead of 'Mesopotamian precursors'. Maybe not everyone would agree with this new capitalization, but it looked better to me so I did itHimkdm (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC).

Thanks for your contribution. WP convention never capitalizes the second word in a section heading. I see it has been reverted already--Akrasia25 (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"No geologic evidence of a biblical global flood"

This comment refers to problems with the following quotes:

In the historicity section: "While research shows a literal Noah's Ark could not be practical,[3] nor is there geologic evidence of a biblical global flood,[45] commentators throughout history have made attempts to demonstrate the Ark's existence."

Correspondingly in the intro: "There is no scientific evidence that Noah's Ark existed as it is described in the Bible,[3] nor is there evidence in the geologic record for the biblical global flood.[4]"

And similar comments in the Noah's Flood Genesis and Genesis flood narrative. The problem lies not in the historicity of the ark, but rather in the historicity of the flood. The claim that there is no historical candidate is plain wrong.

There's plenty of floods that most Flood myths could accurately have represented, to take a massive example, anything of similar size to the Zanclean Flood would make a good candidate, of course the Zanclean Flood is too old to survive in myth form, but I'm illustrating that a flood doesn't need to be actually global to realistically be a candidate for Noah's flood. Of course such a candidate flood would not be global as the myth claims, but to such a historical author, the area covering the mediterranean sea would be their world.--TZubiri (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

A more recent example and best candidate for inspiring Noah's flood is the possible Black Sea deluge, dated around 5000 BCE, situated near the mediterranean, and through a strait mechanism similar to the Zanclean Flood, it has been proposed as such a candidate, see following references:

1- Black Sea deluge hypothesis

"As proposed, the Early Holocene Black Sea flood scenario describes events that would have profoundly affected prehistoric settlement in eastern Europe and adjacent parts of Asia and possibly was the basis of oral history concerning Noah's flood.[3] Some archaeologists support this theory as an explanation for the lack of Neolithic sites in northern Turkey.[4][5][6] In 2003, Ryan and coauthors revised the dating of the early Holocene Noah's flood to 8400 14C years BP (possibly around 8800 calendar years BP).[7]"

2- An article from the guardian about archeological discoveries 3 years after reference 3 in the above quote: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2000/sep/14/internationalnews.archaeology

Of course there are criticisms of this theory, but these sources are stronger than the one present that claims lack of evidence. Furthermore the focus on a global flood is just glaringly obvious, I'm aware that some fringe groups like young earth creationists might propose a literal interpretation of the events in the myth, but this discussion is pretty much dead and settled. The edit I will make will thus leave these comments unaltered, but add a separate discussion about non-global historical candidates for such a flood.--TZubiri (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The Ark and its Flood are, of course, related. But this article is about the Ark, and concentrates on that; its mentions of the Flood are, and should be, merely summary in nature. It is not the job of this article to go deep into the Flood itself. The lead, which itself is summary in nature already says "There is also no evidence of a global flood...", which carefully and specifically includes the qualifier "global", thus leaving open the probability that some other sort of real flood (i.e. non-global) probably underlies the story. I think everything you want about these ideas is already present in the "Historicity" section of this article. More detail would more naturally belong the Flood article rather than this Ark article. Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Flat no. Firstly, I, as many, searched for Noah's Ark, not noah's flood or Genesis flood narrative. This is one of those cases where a merge would be appropriate, but it is how it is. Second, the Flood article does not have this problem, so I have not raised the issue there. Thirdly, the flood article links back to this page. So, this is a very relevant place to discuss this issue.--TZubiri (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The quote says "No geologic evidence of a biblical global flood" Not "No evidence of a large flood in the middle east" Therefor the quote is not wrong. You're arguing against a quote that you made up yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.207.143 (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

A Feasibility Study

I included a sentence regarding the feasibility studies which aim to answer the Ark's place in archeological history. Cited review's of John Woodmorappe's paper published in Inst. for Creation Research, 1996 and an article from the Creation/Evolution Journal from the National Center for Science Education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialwebaaronlee (talk • contribs) 06:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

untrue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

there is an enormous amount of proof that there was a global flood. recorded in history with many nations! 47.51.16.173 (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

and.... there is geological proof.... back by Geologist 47.51.16.173 (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Then please link a reliable source that says as such. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, the so-called scientific method doesn't regard any evidence we bring as reliable, becuase it contradicts the so-called scientific knowledge. There is plenty of evidence indeed, but they are blind enough to not accept that a global flood did indeed wipe out the old Earth. Sorry, dude, changing their minds is not possible as Wikipedia only gets misinformation about Noah's flood from the so-called scientists. Conta Sla 2 (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@MPants at work: Can you please provide the policy or guideline that prompted you to close this discussion? Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thinker78, WP:TPG, WP:FORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, take your pick. They all apply. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, User:MPants at work Although the editor seems to have certain point of view and it looks like the thread may be a duplicate of a comment shortly above, I still am concerned about the closing of this discussion. It appears to have elements about the editing process of the article, which in my opinion should be discussed further (for example, editor says no evidence other than the scientific method is treated as reliable, to which I think there needs to be a proper response). I'm not a big fan of censoring talk pages, or closing discussions, but rather I am of the opinion that discussions should be let flow freely, as much as possible. In this situation, a kind reminder to the editors involved that there is another thread discussing the issue above would be called for.--Thinker78 (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thinker78, Thank you for dragging this thread out. It's exactly what we needed from a thread in which a random IP and an editor both vent their spleens about WP's policies and make hollow claims about evidence they seem to have conveniently forgotten to include.

And yes, that preceding sentence was entirely sarcastic. You may also note that sharing your opinions on our talk page guidelines is, itself not an appropriate subject of discussion for this page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

MPants Thanks for your input. The reason I chose to write here instead of telling you in your talk page is for the editors involved to be aware of the workings behind the closing of the discussion, so they don't think it was just a haphazard exercise of censorship on a whim just because you don't agree with their point of view. I believe in transparency and we should strive to be as professional as possible in our decisions when editing and enforcing rules, policies and guidelines. Too many people believe Wikipedia is biased and prone to censorship and when I can I try to show that's not always the case. Kind regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

How many kilometres travelled Noah ark in ocean

How many kilometres travelled Noah ark in ocean 2401:4900:4FF5:772A:860E:EA9C:58E5:CCAB (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

None. If you read the second paragraph in the lead, you will see that the story is almost certainly fiction. Looking for precise figures from it is a pointless activity. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Mesopotamian models

There are problems with this claim

So then it’s been proposed that the biblical story is a copy or based from the Sumerian one. But, what about the stories from other parts of the world? The Hawaiian myth, for example, already existed when Christian missionaries arrived in Hawaii in late 18thcentury CE! So when and how did the Hawaiian copy the story from the Sumerian?

In the Hawaiian group, there are several legends of the flood. One legend relates that in the time of Nuu, or Nana-nuu the flood came upon the earth and destroyed all living beings.

Nuu, by command of his god, built a large vessel with a house on top of it, which was called the royal vessel, in which he and his family, consisting of his wife, Lilinoe, his 3 sons and their wives, were saved. When the flood subsided, the 3 gods (Kane, Ku, and Lono) entered the vessel of Nuu, and told him to go out.

He did so, and found himself on the top of Mauna Kea (the highest mountain on the island of Hawaii). He named a cave there after his wife and it remains there to this day. Another version of the legend says that Nuu landed and dwelt in Kahiki-honua-kele, a large and extensive country. Nuu left the vessel in the evening of the day and took with him a pig, coconuts, and awa (some kind of juice) as an offering to the god Kane.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.84.136 (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC) 

The prevalence of such are discussed at Flood myth. If you have a reliable source about the Hawaii flood myth, its probably best discussed there. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The Hawaiian stories are probably totally independent of the Sumerian story. The Hawaiian stories are not consistent, but do any of them include him preserving all the different types of animals etc? Hawaii is very volcanic and very seismically active, so its quite possible that these stories reflect actual events where an individual island or bay was hit by a tsunami, such as what happened in the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. These Hawaiian stories are perhaps therefore equivalent to the Black Sea deluge hypothesis. Wdford (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

No storys or legends are completly consistent so thats a weak argument its like saying difrent storys about the same event are talking about diffrent events but there is no way of knowing that or to come to such an conclusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.84.136 (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Even in islam you will find inconsistinces versus the jewish torah one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.84.136 (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Forgot to add this

A Banks Islands flood story tells of a man who builds a giant canoe, takes his family and island animals aboard, then floats away never to return when there is a great flood.

A Fijian flood myth relates that Ndengei, the serpent god of the Kauvandra mountain on Viti Levu, declares war on the people after his pet bird is killed. The local carpenters build a fort for protection, but when a giant tree growing beside the fort is uprooted a flood ensues, the fort collapses, and the carpenters are captured and exiled. A similar story is told in Tonga, the Lau islands and Dobu Island in PNG, where it seems to function as an etiology for the spread of boat building skills, while more distantly related myths about floods and a great tree are told by Hawaiians and Maoris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.84.136 (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Minor inconsistencies could be due to different oral traditions diverging slightly over time. But the part about all the animals, two by two - that is the fundamental basis of the Noah story. Any other "similar" legend about a family on a raft is clearly not related, if it does not mention preserving all those animals. The Sumerian legend of Utnapishtim mentions all the animals etc – ergo it's directly related. Ditto the legend of Atra-Hasis. The Israelites were in exile in Babylon when they wrote down all these "Israelite" myths, so no big surprise that there were close similarities. The infant Moses in the basket of reeds is another direct example. However the older Hawaiian flood story says only that a great flood covered all of the islands except the top of the highest peak, and that two people survived up there. The story of Nu’u ends on the same mountain, so quite probably this version is the original (possibly true) story with a bit of Christian missionary influence added on. However they didn't bother to add huge numbers of animals to the raft, probably because that was clearly a ridiculous concept. The Banks Island guy probably took a few animals along for food - cannery had not yet been invented. PS: There is no mention of any giant trees in the myths of Noah, Utnapishtim or Atra-Hasis. The Sumerians lived on the banks of a giant river in a very flat flood plain, and they knew all about seasonal floods. There is geological evidence of numerous flood events, as there is in most river flood plains. People who live on islands on the Ring of Fire know all about tsunamis. They had another one in Tonga not too long ago. Wdford (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

"There is geological evidence of numerous flood events" Yes, but the Sumerian flood myth seems connected to the cold and wet period known as the Piora Oscillation, and the decline or end of the Uruk period. Dimadick (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I dont think you get my point so i will use another more modern example Many years ago President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, and the entire event was captured on video tape. There were hundreds of eyewitnesses. The tapes were watched over and over again. Yet, in the midst of such a robust eyewitness record, people still argue to this day about what they saw and what actually happened. Was it a lone shooter or an elaborate conspiracy? So the event is still interpreted in a variety of ways. So what you are claiming here is since we do not have video evidence or other forms of evidence we must then conclude these storys are seperate from another or perhaps the claim of a such event even didnt take place' Same thing happened with germans just after ww2, even if they personally saw alot of what happened you had people that had various versions of what they saw you even had people denying that there was ever happening any crime against jews Yet you still insist that this must be diffrent events because there are more than minor inconsistentencys??? Thats called bias The claim here i find subjective and based on bias is the claim that Noah story is based on Mesoptanian orgins You then have to ignore world history and people migration and the numerous flood storys all over the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.84.136 (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

"There were hundreds of eyewitnesses." Eyewitness memory is notoriously unreliable. "details of unpleasant emotional events are recalled poorly compared to neutral events. States of high emotional arousal, which occur during a stressful or traumatic event, lead to less efficient memory processing." Dimadick (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Again not getting the point It doesnt matter if the eyewitnesses is notoriously unreliable thats not the point here The point here is if they are talking about largley the same things and all the myths about floods are generally speaking about the same things its alot of times about goods, and its alot of times about a flood My suggestion woud be perhaps all the flood myths come from the same source at one time in human history but thats specualation and i have no evidence of this claim but i can say that the claim that the noah story is based on the Mesoptanian one, is on very shaky ground on closer inspection at least when you check all the numerous flood myths and people migration in regards to world history. It simply does not fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.84.136 (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Please stop hypothesizing, this page isn't a forum for discussion of the topic. Bring some academic sources discussing flood myths. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This topic/section on the wikipedia page is called Talk

theres a reason i posted it here and not in the article itself so i can make all the hypothesizing in the talk page i want otherwise there woud be no point in the talk page where such discussion woud take place woud it? What youre asking me to do is not raising critical objection in the talk page when i see a critical issue in the main aricle, then then whats the point in having a talk page at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.84.136 (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The point of the talk page is to discuss the article, not the subject. See WP:FORUM which says "bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article,". You're discussing the topic of flood myths, find academic sources which back your position. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Well i did suggest how to improve the article not just a discussion about flood myths but i agree it can be seen as me talking just about the subject matter because i was also responding to other users If youre asking me about accedmic sources thats impossible to provide theres no accedemic sources that have proven the suggestion i came with as far as i know i did say it was my suggestion was only a speculation If you mean if i can provide documentation on the other flod myths itself then i can provide those but thats not what youre asking for here Annyway, going to stop suggesting improvements and responding to other users — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.84.136 (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Modern Day Proof Of The Flood

Where could one find Modern Day Proof of The Floods existence 98.211.58.84 (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere. There is none. HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@HiLo48: How do you know that? -- Python Drink (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

They have found proof of a world wide flooding, But it took place 9,600 bc. they have the wroung date to start with. But there is still the problem with DNA testing. They cant prove all the animals and people's DNA stem from Noah's ark. 66.181.121.170 (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. Unless someone has concrete suggestions on how to improve this article, this conversation is pointless. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• НОЕВ КОВЧЕГ. В.Косов 140х100 х.м. 2018.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HUM 202 - Introduction to Mythology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: DogWithTheFogFrog.

— Assignment last updated by Rockethound (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Fictional?

Brennan1111, AdrianWikiEditor, Dezoekster Please explain why you are removing the description that this is a fictional ship. What source do you have for it factually existing and how does this match with the article? Also were you WP:CANVASSed or is there any element of WP:MEATPUPPET? —DIYeditor (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the need to use the word fictional when we can use the more natural, accurate, and neutral mythical. There is a difference between Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and the Bible. There has been consensus for the use of this terminology before (there are a lot more examples in the archives). Also do a Control+F and see which of these terms come up. Havradim leaf a message 07:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Mythical works for me. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Another +1 for "mythical". In this and similar articles, we are carefully using the words "myth" and "mythical". Let's apply that consistency here. Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Mythical narratives tend to reflect the religious beliefs, the rituals, and the social norms of the cultures which created them. Fictional works tend to only reflect the cultural values of their writers and/or of their intended audience. You can learn a lot about a writer when you notice the ideological background of specific works in their output, but their ideas may not have been in step with the wider society of their era. Dimadick (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The change has now been made—the consensus process at work. Thank you all for your input. Havradim leaf a message 05:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that fictional is not really the best language to address the beliefs of hundreds of millions or billions of people around the world. Mythical is a much better word. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The book of Genesis 2604:2D80:6109:F000:D897:3CB8:AAD4:2098 (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

...is not a reliable source. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Good one. Lol. Thinker78 (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the difference between fictional and mythical. Nothing in the above discussion explains it. Yes, some editors seem to feel they have achieved some sort of a victory here, but I don't see it. This really doesn't strike me as encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Winnie the Pooh is fictional. Noah is mythical. They are similar words but have some nuance. What's the problem? —DIYeditor (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess I'm not seeing the nuance. This being a "factual" encyclopaedia, is it explained anywhere? HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I will give you my perspective, but I think it probably useful to put some cards on the table: I don't believe there is any 'reality' to the Flood Narrative (or any of them). That said, at least for me, the nuance between the terms lies in self-conscious knowledge and intent. That is, fiction is a knowing untruth (though not necessarily a lie). 'Myth' exists in a rather grayer world--as I see it, many people who pass on 'myths' don't even really consider the associated truth value at all. So, I guess I would slightly prefer "myth," but should consensus determine that "fiction" is preferable, I will not be particularly disturbed. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

There are many articles in Wikipedia about myths. I don't see how that is unencyclopedic. In fact, any serious encyclopedia would include ancient myths.

Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myths. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Is a myth not fictional? HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

What do reliable sources call it? And I'd say no in any case. Myths are a psychological truth within the culture where it originates. No specific author, they grow. Fiction has a specific author. But again, RS count. Doug Weller talk 07:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Are we legit having a conversation on the back of some troll comment?? Please, revert IP nonsense like that instead of engaging with it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about changing fiction to myth? That's not trolling. All myths are fiction (more or less) but not all fictions are myths. RS normally describe Noah's Ark as part of one of the flood myths. I'm not sure I've ever seen it described as "fiction". Although it obviously is.DeCausa (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm referring to 2604:d280's comment, which prompted a rather inappropriate response by HiLo and Thinker. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Where is the inappropriateness? I am simply trying hard to understand the "nuances" people claim exist in these cagtegorisations. Lots of people (including you!) are declaring that myth is better than fiction here, but very few are attempting to explain that difference. And I'm certainly not trolling!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it's overall been a useful discussion, and has resulted in an improvement. Myth is obviously a better word to use here than Fiction, as those two articles make clear. Neither implies any kind of factuality. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that myth is a better word than fiction. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

CaptainEek can you clarify if your comment about "inappropriate response" is in your administrator capacity or just a random personal opinion. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 06:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thinker78 I am not taking any admin action here. But that doesn't prevent me from calling out inappropriate comments like "Good one. Lol." CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct that all myths are fiction. In fact, some myths can turn out to be real and many myths are based on true situations that due to passage of time and other factors evolved into something else. For example, the Olympic gods may have been kings that later on were deified. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The Olympic gods may have been human kings once, at some level, but all the gumpf about their supernatural powers is clearly FICTION. The city of Troy probably did exist in real life, but the supernatural portions of the story, including the gods and monsters, is clearly FICTION. Father Noah may have once existed as a real-life Sumerian patriarch, but the stories of a huge flood and a huge boat and pairs of animals etc, is clearly FICTION. Hence the need for distinction. We need to be very clear in our choice of wording, to report that a global flood DID NOT HAPPEN. River floods were common in Sumer, though much less so in Canaan, but they flooded river valleys, not entire deserts and mountain ranges. And Noah did not have pairs of kangaroos etc on board. Wdford (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I just feel the need to name-drop my old buddy Euhemerus. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you proposing going to all articles about ancient mythology and change the wording from mythology to fiction? There is a reason why scholars use the word mythology and myths instead of tales and fiction. Let's instead mirror reliable sources wording. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: you might be interested in this discussion. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I am not sure if I have much to contribute, but I may do my best. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

What percent fiction does a story have to include for the story to be considered fictional on the whole? There was in fact a real stuffed bear named Winnie-the-Pooh and a real boy named Christopher Robin behind the Winnie the Pooh story. It's still fiction. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem with euhemerism is in identifying the actual extent to which the myth is historical information, and the extent to which it has been distorted by adding layers of blatant fiction. In the case of the flood of Noah, scientific evidence shows that there was no such thing at all, and there cannot ever have been such a nonsense. If a Sumerian farmer once used a reed raft to save his family and some livestock from a local river in flood, can that really be used to claim a "historical basis" for the grandiose global flood story of Genesis? How much historical fact is needed for a myth to still be a myth, and how much fiction can be included before the myth becomes a fiction story - or even a blatant lie?

@Thinker78 - you stated above that "There is a reason why scholars use the word mythology and myths instead of tales and fiction." Please elaborate? Wdford (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The difference between "myth" and "fiction" has got nothing to do with the truthfulness of it. It's about the purpose of the story. Take a look at some of the citations in our Myth article. DeCausa (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Even using that confusing mess of contradiction as a benchmark, the flood story of Noah is more fiction than myth. Even in the development of a religion or culture, it serves no purpose other than to suggest that a certain deity slaughtered large numbers of innocents for no valid reason. What "mythical" purpose does this serve? To terrify a simple people into obedience for fear of their "protective" deity? It explains nothing, and it defines nothing, other than a need for slavish obedience to a cruel and capricious invisible master - and to "his" priests and prophets. I can understand the Creation Myth/s. I understand the need for ancient peoples to explain thunder and rain and famine and infertility etc. I understand why the ancient Israelites would develop grand myths around Abraham and Moses and the Passover and King Solomon. I understand why the ancient Christians would develop a deity out of a political activist. But why on earth a global flood, and a pair of kangeroos? Wdford (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why this thread has so much WP:OR about whether we think it's fiction or myth. It's irrelevant. What do the RS say. AFAIK, it's habitually referred to as one of the flood myths. What are the sources that describe it not as myth but as fiction? DeCausa (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I doubt you will ever find a source which describes the flood as "not myth but fiction", because to most intelligent people, "MYTH IS FICTION". That's the entire point. The rest of this distinction is an attempt by certain editors to differentiate between "fiction which hardly anybody believes to be true" vs "fiction which some people believe to be true". The question being asked here is still the same - how many people have to believe a portion of a fiction to be true, before it translates from "fiction" into "myth"? Wdford (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

"Most intelligent people"??? There's popular mis-usage of the word myth. But that's an entirely different thing. I'm repeating myself, but "myth" has very specific meaning, which has nothing to do with what you say. But I'll think I'll drop out at this point and let you guys continue your discussions. DeCausa (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

From the dictionary:

"Myth - 1. a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. 2. a widely held but false belief or idea."

Seems I am spot-on. Nowhere does it say that myths are NOT fiction. Does anybody have a dictionary definition of a myth which states it is NOT fiction? Wdford (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Er, where did I say myths are not fiction? As I posted earlier, all myths are fiction (more or less) but not all fictions are myths. I'm definitely dropping out of this rather pointless thread now! DeCausa (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It is common hearing about mythology. It is not common hearing about fictional ancient tales. My educated guess is that myths and mythology are the go-to accepted terms by scholars. Fictional ancient tales denotes more observer bias not objectivity, and it doesn't sound that respectful to other cultures. That's one reason I think mythology is the term experts use, at least in publications and conferences. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I suspect I could find a Wikipedia guideline to tell us that it's not Wikipedia's job to be respectful to other cultures, whatever "other" might mean there. I'm not from Wikipedia's predominant white, Christian, American culture, for example. My "other" might differ from your "other". HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I am just giving my take about why scholars use the terms mythology and myths instead of fictional tales. Otherwise, you are right about "respectful". Per WP:NOTCENSORED, "being objectionable is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content." (No idea why mentioning race though.) Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

People can throw words around casually and imprecisely, but when writing encyclopedia articles, we should strive for accuracy and recognize the clear distinctions between related concepts. Fiction is written by authors or authors who are well aware that they are creating a work that does not purport to be the truth. The readers of or viewers of or listeners to fictional works, are for the most part well aware the the work is fictional, but they like fiction because it is entertaining, and for great works of literary fiction, it is also inspiring and illuminating. Myth, on the other hand, is usually of uncertain origin and authorship, and in many cases, seems to have developed in layers over long periods of time, and was and is spread by people who sincerely believe the myth to be true. Almost no sane person believes that the works of William Shakespeare or Mary Shelley or Charles Dickens or Ernest Hemingway or Agatha Christie or Robert A. Heinlein are factual accounts, but many millions or possibly billions of people believe that the myths of their culture are true, including the Noah's Ark myth. Calling the story "fictional" implies that one or a few people thousands of years ago deliberately created a false story. There is, of course, zero evidence that this is the case, and it is far more likely that the people who set the ancient myth to writing believed that it is the truth, as they understood truth. Cullen328 (talk) 04:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you pinpoint the issue very precisely. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Over the years, the topic of "myth" arises quite often on articles relating to the first few chapters of Genesis. And the discussion bounces around, rather like this one. So might it be useful to have some sort of Wikipedia essay about it? Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328, I second Feline Hymnic. It would be good if you make an essay simply by copy pasting what you wrote. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree very well said more then essay worthy as is.Wikipedia:Myth versus fiction WP:MVF Moxy- 03:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I support having an essay, provided it is accurate and properly sourced. The wording offered above is not adequate as it stands.

"Calling the story "fictional" implies that one or a few people thousands of years ago deliberately created a false story. There is, of course, zero evidence that this is the case". This is obviously correct. However, there is also zero evidence that this is NOT the case, for indeed a group of people may well have deliberately created a false story for their own ulterior purposes. For religious myths, one would immediately suspect the priests and others who benefitted hugely from the myth in question. Follow the money.

"It is far more likely that the people who set the ancient myth to writing believed that it is the truth, as they understood truth." This certainly is possible, but it is debatable whether it is "far more likely". A good lie, if heavily supported by the authorities of the day, will gain traction among a gullible and subjugated populace. The difference between a so-called "myth" and a "conspiracy theory" is relatively fine, and in times before most people could read far less access the internet, such things would have been effective instruments of the ruling classes. Consider the much more recent cases underpinning European colonialism, anti-Semitism, communism etc.

Let's open a draft essay, and discuss the choice of wording. Wdford (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

See first draft here at [1] Wdford (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion proved to be very productive! Nice. Thinker78 (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I just found relevant guidance. MOS:MYTH states,

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Gilgamesh flood was only written 7th-9th centuary bc

Gilgamesh flood myth is vopied from the atrahasis epic the bible has no evidence of literally borrowing and flood myths aren’t unique 176.72.71.133 (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you want to specifically change in the article, and what reliable source(s) can you cite to support such change?s Donald Albury 21:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The are several major mistakes in the current page. The Bible did not 'borrow' from the Gilgamesh saga. If you actually read the earliest texts you will see there are significant differences between the Biblical narrative and the Gilgamesh saga.

Secondly, the Biblical account was written before the saga of Gilgamesh.

Thirdly there is copious amount of evidence showing that a cataclysmic flood occurred and indeed covered the world. Mass fossil graveyards show animals bent into positions that are reminiscent of drowning. The fact that so many creatures were buried alive, shows the event was singular and incredible amounts of liquid materials were involved.

The current page is nothing but a one-sided attack on Christian content. 124.170.118.227 (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

IP, while you are correct that the current standard version of The Epic of Gilgamesh is that from the Library of Ashurbanipal, and therefore dates to the first millennium BCE, if you refer to our page on the Epic, you will see that there is evidence for a cohesive narrative version dating back to the Old Babylonian tablets (ca. 1800 BCE), and evidence for fragmentary poems and bits of narrative dating farther back to the Third Dynasty of Ur. Whatever one's thoughts about faith, I know of no scholars who contend that the biblical narrative was composed anything like this early. I'll leave the flood for another day, but suffice it to say that there is not a scholarly consensus for the position you put forward. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll deal with that standard YEC nonsense. See [2][3].

That should be the end of this discussion as talk pages aren't meant for discussing the Ark, floods, etc. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Josephus claims

Why are Josephus claims considered pseudoarchaeological? He was a secular historian. Onlyloss6973 (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but not an archaeologist. Much of his narrative about the distant past is basically 1st-century folklore. Dimadick (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Josephus came from a priestly family, and while his stated approach to history (essentially, being even-handed) is laudable, there is no doubt he has a particular slant and emphasis to his accounts. He even says in Antiquities that he is, in essence, repeating Jewish records. He was certainly ahead of the curve, but I don't think he can be accurately described as a "secular historian." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

So Antiquities of the Jews shouldn't be considered historically accurate because it has Jewish records about their own history? Doesn't make any sense what you say. Why he can't be considered secular he literally worked for the Roman Emperor which didn't take very kindly to their monotheistic religion which in turn lead to the Jewish Roman wars and destruction of Second Temple. Do you think the Romans would take kindly to Josephus writing Judaic religious polemics considering what they have done to the Jews? R Onlyloss6973 (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Roman Empire wasn't a secular state that is certain so all it's historians shouldn't be considered secular because of that? Onlyloss6973 (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

My point is more that Josephus tells us quite explicitly that he bases his accounts, inter alia, on "Hebrew scriptures." Moreover, Antiquities is not, and was not meant to be, a neutral account of events. His goal was to legitimize the Jewish tradition in the eyes of what we might broadly call the European world. None of this invalidates Josephus in any way, but it does mean we should be careful to keep his works in their proper context. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

So all Roman history should be considered non neutral too because it was written by Roman themselves? What about germanics or Gauls they were all written by the Romans since none could write should they be considered non historical? Onlyloss6973 (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, not "non historical," but Roman historians too have to be used with great care, No one believes Tacitus was on hand to hear the speech delivered by Calgacus, for instance. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not impossible that Calgacus actually gave a speech before a battle. If he gave a speech before battle with Agricola we don't know for sure though it isn't impossible, it is certain the speech is not true since Tacitus didn't know Celtic but he could still have given a speech. Opposing troops weren't that far from eachother in battles before modern warfare so it not a far fetched claim. Generals and kings always gave speeches before battle. Josephus claims shouldn't be considered pseudoarchaeological but unknown to be true or false. I gave a great counter argument to what Dimadick said and still I haven't got an answer. Onlyloss6973 (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that you have a valid counter argument, but if you can establish consensus for a change, then by all means make it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You disagree by giving no argument. Wow what a nice disagreement. Clearly not biased. Shows again how reliable Wikipedia is with people like you being editors. At least Wikipedia itself acknowledges it is not a reliable source of information so that is good, at least it will not induce people in error. Also he still didn't answer in what capacity you are to defend his claims? Onlyloss6973 (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You also didn't even give arguments to even defend it is claims you just said no and left giving no argument lol. You are literally like a meme refusing to elaborate and leaving. Onlyloss6973 (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You also didn't even respond to what I said. You ignored all my arguments and everything I said you gave no argument nothing. You basically said no and left lol. You are pathetic. You act like a literal meme and please stop saying cheers like you won the argument you didn't even argue in order to win an argument with me ok? It is annoying. Everytime you said something I came with an argument which you have zero absolutely zero answer to give and you refuse everything I said without giving any argument. Onlyloss6973 (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Also what consensus with who to talk. Nobody is arguing with me just you but you are not even arguing you just refuse everything I say without giving any argument for what I say. Who is the consensus there is nobody talking Dimadick didn't even give any reply to what I said is he the consensus? You are the consensus? Onlyloss6973 (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

For the moment, Dimadick and myself would appear to be. If you can convince a few other people, then you can ignore us. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Who are the other people? How can I convince someone who is insanely biased and it seems you are only one actually he said nothing for hours. Onlyloss6973 (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and practices. It may suggest some answers to your questions. WP:CONSENSUS would be a reasonable place to start. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision making. It involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It is accepted as the best method to achieve the Five Pillars—Wikipedia's goals. Consensus on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Who is addressing my legitimate concerns through a process of compromise? Who? Tell me who? You? You are compromising absolutely nothing with me you refuse everything I say without giving any argument. You thought I was going to back down with your pathetic attempt to silence my arguments. You didn't. I am very familiar with Wikipedia my friend. I know it isn't a trustworthy source of information Wikipedia acknowledges itself. Cheers!!! Onlyloss6973 (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Calling your interlocutors 'pathetic' is an A+ persuasion technique! I have much to learn from you. Have a nice day! Dumuzid (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes you are really pitiful because you have zero logic in a conversation. A conversation requires two parties consensus on debating on something. I am debating with walls here. Have a wonderful night friend!!! Onlyloss6973 (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You might also want to review the policy on personal attacks. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack? Oh I am sorry friend. I offended you by being pitiful. I didn't know having pity and mercy are considered personal attacks. Maybe you might want to learn this words someday when you donate to a beggar or disabled person but I am very sure you are doing them very often by your generous personality and character. Onlyloss6973 (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyway going back to my arguments since nobody has given me any arguments to my claims can I reach the consensus that nobody answered my arguments. Is this a possible consensus to reach by now? Or do I require external approval? Since nobody has being giving any reason why my claims are false and wrong Onlyloss6973 (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The onus is on you to establish a consensus, which is usually done by persuasion. I am not currently seeing a consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is reached after claims are approved or denied by factual and proven facts. I have been given no proven and factual facts for my claims Onlyloss6973 (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Rejecting my claims without any factual arguments or information isn't called consensus at all. So I should freely edit the page until people come with actual factual arguments and information to reject my claims. Should I do that? Onlyloss6973 (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You certainly can, but you will be reverted. Be mindful that there is a hard limit of 3 non-consecutive revert edits per day. Consensus means a general agreement among involved editors (though it need not be unanimous). To this point, I haven't seen anyone agreeing with you, but that could certainly change. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Reverted because? Onlyloss6973 (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Because you don't have consensus. See also: WP:BRD Dumuzid (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok I am waiting to reach consensus then because consensus can't be reached between just two people with different opinions. Onlyloss6973 (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

So if he got his information from an archaeologist the information shouldn't be considered accurate? We certainly don't know where he got his information so I don't know why you say he got it from folklore that is your own assumptions without any proof of them. But considering his social status it isn't impossible that he got his information from an archaeologist. Why should we deny the information just because he wasn't an archaeologist? Onlyloss6973 (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The point is that no ancient author, or medieval author, or even every early modern author, is reliable in the sense of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Often, such authors are the only source we have for all or part of what they have written about. It is nice if they wrote about something they witnessed, such as Pliny the Younger's description of the eruption of Vesuvius, but all too often they wrote about things they heard from others, as second- or third-hand accounts or as legend or myth, or maybe from written accounts that had similar origins. I will discuss a more recent example that I am familiar with from my editing on WP. The Inca Garcilaso de la Vega wrote an account of the Hernando de Soto expedition called The History of the Conquest of Florida, more commonly call Florida of the Inca. People like to quote and cite that book because it is colorful and full of detail. The problem is that the Inca was not there, and wrote his book 40 years later, while other surviving sources about the de Soto expedition written by people who were on the expedition. So, we have established historians making comments on the Inca's work such as, Milanich and Hudson state that the Inca is unreliable on details of the expedition's itinerary, and note that some historians regard the Inca's account as "more a work of literature than a work of history"., Hann warns that there are many errors in the account produced by the Inca., and Lankford characterizes Garcilaso's La Florida as a collection of "legend narratives," derived from a much-retold oral tradition of the survivors of the expedition. That is why we limit our reliance on primary sources and require independent, secondary, reliable sources for interpretation and analysis of primary sources such as Josephus. Donald Albury 21:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• One can easily turn to sources on the subject. Take The Role of Noah and the Flood in Judean Antiquities and Against Apion by Flavius Josephus which identifies Josephus's narrative on Noah and the Flood as part of Josephus's apologetic goals and thus to be taken with a grain of salt. Or peruse the many articles on Google Scholar under "reliability of Josephus" which discuss at length his accuracy. I should make clear though: the lead is not calling Josephus a pseudo-archaeologist. It's saying that searches for the Ark are pseudo-archaeology. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  None of this seems to be in Josephus.. Shouldn't it be? I blocked Onlyloss673 for PAs after warning. Doug Weller talk 08:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Here was an answer. Moved to WP:SPI. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I doubt that's RalphEllis. I just blocked the editor permanently - they made it clear that they didn't like the website, and the nicest thing they said about me may have been hoping I'll die of cancer. Sadly there's no doubt that they will get their wish. Doug Weller talk 09:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  So, the Ancients did write WP:RS is a pretty specific claim. Do you think that there are many people who posit such idea (well, not uninformed people, just people who won't take no for an answer)? tgeorgescu (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  No idea. But I doubt a RalphEllis sock would have committed suicide by Admin. Unless I misremember them. He certainly didn't like me, but nothing like this guy who didn't even seem to know me. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  • • • "and the nicest thing they said about me may have been hoping I'll die of cancer." I tyically hear such sweet talk from my next-door-neighbor. At least you will not have to interact with that creep again. Dimadick (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

    I think Doug is right that this should be in Josephus. In general I would assess Josephus's article as pretty subpar, especially in the critical modern view category. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

    @CaptainEek I was pretty surprised by it when I looked. Glad to hear I wasn't wrong. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

    Thank you, CaptainEek, for making my point above in a far more succinct and eloquent fashion! Dumuzid (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)