Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

Need to mention that Noah found favour

Because, KillerChihuahua, the article currently reads:

The Genesis narrative tells how God, grieved by the wickedness of mankind, decides to destroy the corrupted world, but instructs Noah to build the Ark and take on board his family and representatives of the animals and birds.

which says the world is going to be destroyed, but, on the other hand, Noah is to build an ark. The two clauses are at best tenuously linked by 'but' and bear no other relationship. By including the fact that 'Noah found favour in the eyes of the LORD' we establish a reason why the ark is built - which is why it belongs here.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. As I said in my edit summary, I believe such content is better suited to Noah. If you continue with your line of thinking, eventually everything about Noah will be in this article by content creep. The Ark was built because there was a flood, not because of favor. The ark was built by Noah because of favor - focus is on Noah not on Ark. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If Noah hadn't found favour, no Ark would have been built (unless someone else had found favour). It is the finding favour in Noah that is, very specifically, the prima facia reason for the ark to be built.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Where we are now: Yes, I believe you have made your view clear. I believe my view is also clear. I suggest we wait for other regular editors of this page to weigh in, and see if we can find consensus concerning your desired addition to the page. Meanwhile, you have made an addition to a Featured article without any support, and with one objection, and you have reverted to keep your desired edit in the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Trimming "The Ark in post-Renaissance scholarship"

I feel that the section 'The Ark in post-Renaissance scholarship' is too long and unwieldy, but rather than simply 'diving in' and making the changes, I thought it would be best to give others the chance to tell me why I shouldn't (or should!) do it.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seperated the section below as it bears no relationship to my idea to trim the post-renaissance sections. Any comments on that idea are welcome here.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Myth implies unhistorical / fictitious even in context of sacred story

In response to this morning's discussion: Yes, a significant number of readers would take "myth"(ology) to mean "unhistorical" and "Fiction" even in the context of a sacred story. Mainly because this is exactly what the authors use the word to imply. I consider the whole assertion that "scholars" or "academics" do not ever use the word "myth" to imply fiction, to be a completely invented argument, and such an obvious Trojan Horse for getting a non-neutral qualifier - that indeed means "fiction" according to the dictionary - into the article under the guise of "neutrality", sponsored by editors who are indeed convinced it is fiction, and are trying to push their POV.

More relevant, when we read what these scholars write using the word in reference to Genesis / Noah's Ark, using any other definition of Myth just doesn't make sense. They clearly are implying their view that it is not historical, and fictional or a fairytale. How else are we to interpret books that have been written about the very same controversy, with titles like Genesis as Myth or Is Genesis Myth? - by pretending there is no controversy, or that it's all been settled and agreed by everyone now? The very title of the book acknowledges that this is a controversy.

Here is one scholarly / academic book's relevant take on this very controversy: Reading the Old Testament By Lawrence Boadt, please look up p. 130 "Is Genesis 1-11 Myth or History?" on Gooogle-books. (No, I am not quote-mining, I have read the entire chapter thankyou!) To sum up, he contrasts both views, that it is myth, or history, assuming that the two are mutually exclusive. He notes the same parallels, noted for centuries, between Genesis and pagan myths. However, after looking at various levels of what "myth" implies, he states that "we must be careful" about calling the Bible a myth, because, as he explains, at the highest level of the term, a "myth" is something used to explain a polytheistic view and push polytheism, while Genesis does the opposite. Therefore, he concludes, "The Israelites demythologized the myths" by presenting hem in monotheistic terms. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

From that, Til, can I assume that, for you, the central point of the POV argument is that use of the word would be assumed by a significant number of readers to mean 'falsehood', regardless of context. I ask for clarity, because this would mean that we all would know where to concentrate our resources with regard to the POV debate.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, how was the subject header I gave this thread not a clear enough answer? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Your synthesis of that (2 page) chapter was shocking. The polytheistic definition was introduced by the Brothers Grimm over 200 years ago. That usage has since fallen well out of favour (how many dictionaries did you find that mentioned polytheism in their definition of myth?), and is noted and discussed at length in one of the books I mentioned in the synthesis section above. Boadt is carefully explaining that this definition is not what is meant when we talk of myths in the Bible. An interesting point you conveniently forgot to mention was that he noted myths were not anti-historical, as your header implies. Til, you need to give a coherent argument, involving a broad spectrum of sources and a discussion of why the opinions in these sources are significant and how they show the 'synthesis sources' I introduced above can not be considered representative of the majority of the notable reliable sources on this topic. I'm not going to continue to dig through your sources like this for you. Unless your arguments (1) are clear on this talk page, (2) don't turn sentences into a jigsaw puzzle, and (3) discuss how they relate to the above sources I've given, then there is not much point in me replying to them, so I probably won't. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'd specifically to see some general sources on your part. Technical sources are great, but how about more notable and generally accessible sources like the Encyclopedia Britannica I mentioned above? You know, something about our level. If your position about Noah's Ark not being considered myth is so prevalent, then I suspect it will be very easy for you to find sources that explicitly mention that position, and explicitly mention this is a significant position. This is not unfair, as I have done exactly this using the 'synthesis sources' above. Ben (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Til, I'm afraid Ben is right, and you've misread Boadt. Boadt says this: "[T]he authors of Genesis consciously intended to refute and contradict such a view of religion (i.e., polytheism) by reworking the traditional stories to remove any idea that there is more than one God..." This the standard scholarly view today, that the author/s of Genesis 1-11 were taking traditional myth and consciously re-working it. What Boadt doesn't say, but what is also the common view, is that they weren't the first to do this: the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation myth, has also clearly been quite consciously re-written to serve Babylonian purposes, by promoting their supreme god Marduk to a place at the head of the existing pantheon. In other words, myth can be used quite consciously, it's not just "tradition". Boadt goes on to describe the theological purposes of the Genesis authors in re-writing Babylonian myth (and possibly some Levantine and Egyptian material is also in Gen.1-11); he's saying that Genesis 1-11 is deliberate theology and possibly deliberate propaganda; but he isn't saying it's history. (See also his page 126, where he describes the Flood story as "a religious lesson told in mythological language.") PiCo (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to demonstrate an example of sources that use "myth" to imply fictional. When I read the Boadt, that's the only sense of the word as he uses it, that makes any possible sense to me. He is using it as a direct contrast to "historical", and it's quite clear from the context. It boggles my mind how anyone can read the same thing I'm reading with some different definition of "myth" and pretend it means anything else; it just doesn't make sense. How many examples of "scholarly" and "academic" authors who plainly mean to imply "fictional" and "non-historical" would you like me to come up with? As for the ever changing definition of "myth", I have also found another 1989 source that says much the same thing: that using the definition that it is a story about multiple gods, Genesis 1-11 is not a myth; and that in order to define it as a myth in scholarly terms, one would have to use the definition that it explains how things came to be from nothing, which might apply to Genesis 1 only, and even there is disagreement. Lots of sources mention that there is disagreement over whether to classify all, some, or none of Genesis as "myth", and whole books have been written on the controversy. Ben's newest definition sounds like he means any story that mentions God must necessarily be a "myth", no doubt because he would also define God as a "myth". Where will this unprecedented POV warfare stop? These tactics of "simply declare victory because we're right and they're wrong, therefore saying myth is neutral because we say so" sound like totally desperation to me, I don't know about anyone else. And of course since any work that does explicitly acknowledge that "myth" is defined as "fiction" will be a priori disqualified for using the "wrong definition" as we have seen, what we really have is a circular argument: Only the sources that use the "right" definition count, because only the sources that use the "right" definition count. That is NOT how WP:RS works. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ray Bolger would be in awe. Ben (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Til, I misunderstood the point you were trying to make. Yes, he does mean "non-historical, fictional". Frankly I'm getting very tired of this whole discussion. Wikipedia is but ripples on the pond of popular culture.PiCo (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see this is getting tiresome, but here's one more example, just to try to drive my point home. Thomas Paine throughout his Age of Reason declared the Bible was "mythology" and regularly attacked Christianity using this very epithet. For example: "the Christian Mythologists, calling themselves the Christian Church, have erected their fable, which, for absurdity and extravagance, is not exceeded by anything that is to be found in the mythology of the ancients." Please note that my purpose in providing this quote is to demonstrate the history of the word "mythology" as clearly implying a certain opinion or POV about the veracity of the Biblical outline of events. It might be argued, however, that because Paine is using the "wrong definition" of myth, his writing is thus to be excluded from consideration as 'non-notable' and 'irrelevant'; but I would hold this to be a disingenuous or at least a fallacious reasoning. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with PiCo that Broadt is using the word myth as a synonym for fiction (if that is what PiCo is saying). Of course, Broadt distinguishes between historical and mythical accounts - they aren't the same thing - and this was the point of that section of his book, imo. He also notes (which seemed to be a big part of your argument(?) above for some reason) that he does not mean to use the term myth as a story strictly involving polytheism.

That the Noah's Ark story is a myth is practically undisputed throughout the reliable sources. It is a term freely used in modern times by specialist sources, general references and all the way to down to children's books and educational material for people learning the English language. It is used by the media and higher educational institutions. More than this, I have found sources of exceptional calibre from each of those types of sources that explicitly state this is the case in general. That is, these aren't just a few convenient sources that themselves make use of the word myth, they explain that most people consider this the case. As such, we are bound by Wikipedia's policies to describe Noah's Ark as a myth.

I've given you every opportunity the present a reasonable case in terms of reliable sources and Wikipedia policy to not describe Noah's Ark as a myth. Instead, you've taken this whole thing personally. You made clear your goal at the start of this mess, you didn't like to see the word myth associated with 'living' religions. Your continued discussion on this page made it clear you didn't like your religion being discussed from a scholarly point of view. You preferred a 'Swiss law' interpretation of NPOV in which we present no point of view and we let the reader decide. You've presented a few sources, including some self-published sources, that describe a particular author's opinion (that you presumably liked) as opposed to sources that describe the situation in general. After careful inspection by several editors here, some of these sources turned out to bolster the case for using the term myth (the Northrop Frye book comes to mind). It seemed this was a problem with 'phrase mining', the most dishonest and lazy research method I can think of. On top of this, you have consistently avoided citing Wikipedia's policies together with your sources, and instead appealed to personal feelings on the matter. I've also lost count of the number of straw man arguments you've tried to play out.

Unfortunately for your cause I guess, we do not give points of view equal weight unless they are given equal weight by the notable and reliable sources on the topic. Neutrality means we reflect the reliable sources without bias, it does not mean we attempt to remove all bias from the reliable sources. This has been a fundamental misunderstanding on your (and I suspect Martin's) part. As I said at the beginning of the synthesis thread, I will be changing the introductory sentence to conform with Wikipedia's policies when the article is unlocked. One thing I look forward to after that change is a talk page as quite as Talk:Creation myth has been over the last three months, instead of a three-year long argument dominating the talk page.

Since this spilled over to Talk:Mythology and the person who came there was kind enough to point out that this article was the origin of the complaint: Point blank, there are two different meanings of the word myth: one that mythologists, folklorists, academics, experts and so forth use, and one that someone off the street uses. Someone off the street may have been used to people referring to myths of other cultures and then assumes that myth means false because it must be false because they believe something other than what the culture that that person is a part of believes. That usage is basically an extremely biased viewpoint, and one that is unfortunately common. But myth, as the term is used by experts, does not imply true or false. It's a very useful word that has a specific meaning, one that can't be easily replaced. Just because some people think that their myths are more important than everyone else's and must be written about as if they were true or else they will be offended doesn't mean that an encyclopedia should kowtow to their beliefs. The ancient Greeks used the term myth to describe their own religious stories, and that's where the word comes from. It's a term for religious beliefs that were or are held to be true by those who hold them. It' not offensivce to say that the Jews and Christians believe their beliefs. DreamGuy (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, we've only heard that same argument here, and the same responses to it, like 15,000 times now... The current lede is the carefully-worded result of a mediated compromise taking all views into account, not just some, because we're trying to move past the first sentence now... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sumerian Origin

Re your suggestion to add some ideas to the talk page: Here also it would be useful to establish an outline to build stability, a to do list to get people interested in the article involved in wikification, references, grammar, spelling, punctuation and style. After that it needs an editor who can write to compose an interesting and informative article. I know that you told me that after three years this had come together well but here is a short list of things I don't see that perhaps should be researched.

The story of Noah's Ark in the Bible comes from the Epic of Gilgamesh. That should be referenced and discussed. There is some evidence that the character of Gilgamesh actually existed. Anyway the link above brings you to both translation and composite text.

Unlike other bible stories in Wikipedia there doesn't seem to be any discussion of the main characters name in its original language. Here that is Sumerian and in Sumerian Noah is nu-a lu, which means man without fault from "nu-a" without and "lu" fault (and man).

I didn't see any discussion of the fact that the Sumerian words for flood are cognate with MarTu and Amurru or that there are Sumerian names for boats made of the woods, reeds, resins mentioned in the story.

I didn't see any discussion of the fact that there was an actual flood when rising sea levels created the Persian Gulf starting c 16,000 BC when the Euphrated flowed all the way to the Gulf of Aden and the Indus and ending up as far up river as Basra before receeding to Failaka Island.

I'm not saying any of that stuff needs to be in there to get a rating but it would make the article better to have more conformance with the Wikipedia manual for style. Rktect (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Rktect (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Rktect, how can we mention anything about your claim that "in Sumerian Noah is nu-a lu", if nobody before us has ever mentioned any such thing in connection with Noah? Wouldn't that meet the definition of "No original research"? It seems to me that to get any ideas whatsoever into the article, we are at least bound by policy to show whose ideas they are, and to properly attribute them to whoever published them, as there are in fact a multitude of disparate ideas and conjectures out there. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We're going to need some citations for nu-a lu and the other Sumerian words. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'm the first person to note that story exists in the Epic of Gilgamesh and other Sumerian literature. Are you familiar with Hallorans Sumerian lexicon? Go to the bottom of the linked page and there are several different formats you can download it in. If you search the document you will find those and other sumerian words for large boats, captains of large boats, the words for catastrophic floods and for woods and resins. Also if you go to the composite text instead of the translation for the linked original version you get the original Sumerian. Rktect (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I was doubting the origin of the story -- in fact I know I wasn't. However, I can find nothing on the linguistics. Where is the "composite text" of which you speak? If you provide it, I'm pretty sure I can muddle my way through it. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Found it •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

SEGMENT C 1-27......seat in heaven. ...... flood. ...... mankind. So he made ....... Then Nintud ....... Holy Inana made a lament for its people. Enki took counsel with himself. An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursaja made all the gods of heaven and earth take an oath by invoking An and Enlil. In those days Zi-ud-sura the king, the gudu priest, ....... He fashioned ....... The humble, committed, reverent ....... Day by day, standing constantly at ....... Something that was not a dream appeared, conversation ......, ...... taking an oath by invoking heaven and earth. In the Ki-ur, the gods ...... a wall. Zi-ud-sura, standing at its side, heard: "Side-wall standing at my left side, ....... Side-wall, I will speak words to you; take heed of my words, pay attention to my instructions. A flood will sweep over the ...... in all the ....... A decision that the seed of mankind is to be destroyed has been made. The verdict, the word of the divine assembly, cannot be revoked. The order announced by An and Enlil cannot be overturned. Their kingship, their term has been cut off; their heart should be rested about this. Now ....... What ......." approximately 38 lines missing

SEGMENT D 1-11All the windstorms and gales arose together, and the flood swept over the ....... After the flood had swept over the land, and waves and windstorms had rocked the huge boat for seven days and seven nights, Utu the sun-god came out, illuminating heaven and earth. Zi-ud-sura could drill an opening in the huge boat and hero Utu entered the huge boat with his rays. Zi-ud-sura the king prostrated himself before Utu. The king sacrificed oxen and offered innumerable sheep.

Rktect (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A bit much missing for my taste, but compared to Etruscan it's a treasure trove. Not sure how much it helps, I need to do some linguistic work. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"The story of Noah's Ark in the Bible comes from the Epic of Gilgamesh" is just one opinion among very many. As I understand it, the current consensus is that the two stories both derive from a common (now lost) original. Sorry, no cites or time to research on that, but if anyone else can verify it I'd appreciate.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, the idea that the biblical Ark story comes from Gilgamesh is held by nobody except Rktect. The actual theory is that the Biblical ark story is based on the Atrahasis myth. That myth is one component of a work called the Epic of Gilgamesh, but Rktect has gotten himself thoroughly confused about what's what. Noah, by the way, is a perfectly good Hebrew word meaning "rest", and finding a Sumerian origin for it is ludicrous. Not to put too fine a point on it, Rktect doesn't know the subject.PiCo (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Epic of Gilgamesh is an epic poem from Ancient Mesopotamia and is among the earliest known works of literary fiction. Scholars believe that it originated as a series of Sumerian legends and poems about the mythological hero-king Gilgamesh, which were gathered into a longer Akkadian poem much later; the most complete version existing today is preserved on 12 clay tablets in the library collection of the 7th century BC Assyrian king Ashurbanipal.

The problem with your acusation is that the dates for the Sumerian version predate the old Babylonain Atra-Hasis epic which is copied from them in Akkadian by the better part of a millenia.

We might also note that Hebrew didn't exist as a language for another millenia after the period you reference. While its possible to claim all the versions are independently invented, that creates its own problems; first its a really well known story in both Sumerian and Akkadian literature and secondly there is a lot of agreement in characters and other detail between versions.

Abzu – (also Apsu) the fresh water in rivers and beneath the ground. Anu – (An in Sumerian) the chief god in heaven, father of the gods on the earth. Anunnaki – (sometimes Anunna) the gods who lived on the Earth. Atra-hasis – (also Atrahasis, Utnapishtim, Ziusudra) the wise man of Shuruppak who saved mankind in the Flood. Ekur – (literally “mountain house”) Enlil’s citadel in Nippur, located on the upper Euphrates River. Enki – (Ea in Akkadian) Enlil’s brother; God of the Abzu, the wisest and craftiest of the major gods on earth. Enlil – (Ellil in Akkadian) Enki’s brother; God of the Air, the most power- ful of the major gods on earth. Geshtu-e – an unknown god, possibly a Sumerian play on words. Igigi – the lesser gods in heaven without individual names. Ishtar – (Inanna in Sumerian) Goddess of Love and War, represented by Venus, the evening / morning star. Mami – (Ninhursag, Ninmah and Nintu in Sumerian) The Earth Goddess; Mother Nature. Namtar – (also Namtara) Herald of Death; son of Ereshkigal, Queen of the Netherworld. Netherworld – a dark, dismal place underground where the dead spend eternity. Ninurta – (also Adad) Enlil’s son, a young storm god who rode the clouds. Nippur – an ancient Sumerian city on the upper Euphrates River; a holy city much like today’s Mecca. Nusku – Enlil’s vizier and doorkeeper of the Ekur. Shuruppak – an ancient city on the Euphrates River, midway between Nip- pur and Ur.

Rktect (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The 18th century BCE Akkadian Atra-Hasis epic, named after its human hero,[1] contains both a creation myth and a flood account and is one of three surviving Babylonian flood stories. The oldest known copy of the epic tradition concerning Atrahasis[2] can be dated by colophon (scribal identification) to the reign of Hammurabi's great-grandson, Ammi-Saduqa (1646–1626 BCE), but various Old Babylonian fragments exist; it continued to be copied into the first millennium. The Atrahasis story also exists in a later fragmentary Assyrian version, first having been rediscovered in the library of Ashurbanipal,[3] but, because of the fragmentary condition of the tablets and ambiguous words, translations had been uncertain.

The story of the flood from the Epic of Gilgamesh can be read in the original Sumerian, but here is the translation. There are many different copies of the text as it was a popular story in the ANE long before the authors of the Bible got started compiling their books. There are about 42,000 comparisons between the two stories available online. Rktect (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Rktect, you haven't understood what you've been reading. The scholarly consensus (and it is a consensus) is that the Noah story is based on the Babylonian version of the Atrahasis myth, and not on the Sumerian version. In other words, the version on which the Noah story is based dates from the first half of the 1st millenium BC, not earlier. PiCo (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Consensus" means where everyone agrees. If those who agree with each other, ostracize or stigmatize all those who dissent, that's really the opposite of "consensus". Just ask Gandhi. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Til Eulenspiegel. I'm not aware of any scholarly consensus that rejects Sumerian sources or gives any reason why they aren't germane. The Wikipedia articles on the history of this literature and such scholarly specialists in it as Sumerian linguists, Akkadian linquists, Project Guttenberg, ETCSL and the Oriental Institute, use both sources Akkadian and Sumerian. Scholars and linguists are familiar with the entire story, every fragment of it. Some Sumerian text fragments don't show up in the Akkadian corpus and vice versa so the whole story is broken into sections or tablets using whatever references there may be for the texts. We can use any of the following to further our appreciation of the text and I would suggest these sources are perfectly appropriate for inclusion in the article making it better.

• Translations of the legends of Gilgamesh in the Sumerian language can be found in Black, J.A., Cunningham, G., Fluckiger-Hawker, E, Robson, E., and Zólyomi, G., The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, Oxford 1998-.

• • Gilgamesh and Huwawa, version A
  • Gilgamesh and Huwawa, version B
  • Gilgamesh and the Bull of Heaven
  • Gilgamesh and Aga
  • Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the nether world
  • The death of Gilgamesh
• The Project Gutenberg eBook, An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic, by Anonymous, Edited by Morris Jastrow, Translated by Albert T. Clay
• Epic of Gilgamesh, summary by M. McGoodwin
• Gilgamesh by Richard Hooker (wsu.edu)
• The Epic of Gilgamesh: A Spiritual Biography
• Lectures on the Gilgamesh epic by Clay Burell. A very personal but interesting approach.

Rktect (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Rktect, the article already has a small subsection about the Mesopotamian origins of the Noah story, and it's enough - no more is needed. And yes, there's a consensus - no-one inside the actual scholarly discipline of biblical studies disagrees. PiCo (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No, there isn't a consensus at all, the origins of Genesis are one of the most controversial and hotly disputed subjects in all of history. Look out for anyone trying to say their view is a "consensus" and everyone else's is ostracised or doesn't count. There hasn't been a new Council of Nicea, to dictate what everyone "must" either believe about it, or be "excommunicated". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The subject isn't genesis, it's the Ark story. Everyone agrees that the first 11 chapters of genesis have a separate origin from the rest, and that that origin is pretty late. As for the connection of the Ark story to older stories, the point is that although the Babylonian story is based on Akkadian/Sumerian stories, the story in Genesis isn't - it's closer to the Babylonian version. There's a chain of influences or derivations, with the Genesis story as the last link, dating from abt the 5th century BC.PiCo (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus. Just glancing around Google will tell you that much. If, by 'consensus' you mean 'scholarly opinion' then you are still wrong. It is clear to see that opinions are extremely divided amongst the scholars. Firstly, about the direction of influence. For the sake of simplicity, I am lumping all of the mesopotamian versions together (for the moment):

1. The Mesopotamian came first (widely held)
2. The Tanakh came first (less widely held)
3. The two were developed seperately (hardly held at all)
4. The two derive from a now-lost common ancestor (widely held)

1, 2 & 4 are all sufficiently widely held as to warrant a mention, with 1 & 4 given the most in-depth treatment. Rktect - you cannot boldly state that the Genesis version derives from the Sumerian - there are plenty of alternative views that must be given weight.

Amongst those that hold that the Mesopotamian is the older version there is clearly some debate as to which is the oldest and whether they all derive from a common ancestor. It is clear that you could end up giving a huge section over to the debate within this section and end up giving the Mesopotamian-origin view a far more detailed examination than it warrants, at least as compared to the other views. I am not going to get into the argument about which is the 'superior' Mesopotamian version - I just ask that you do not let that argument create a huge section in the article at the expense of alternative views.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should lose the Mesopotamian tag and get more specific as to which city state and which library we are talking about. There are bits and pieces of the story scattered all over the place. Its the Kassites that were responsible for the standardizing of Sumerian and Akkadian texts (Michael Roaf, CAM, p143, there are 12,000 religious tablets from Nippur that date to the time of Kurigalzu II and Kashtilash IV. The Elamite gods of the story were quite different from the Sumerian and Akkadian gods of the story and that applies to the texts from the libraries of Assyria at Alalah and Nuzi. The scribes of Mari where the library had 20,000 tablets composed a different version than the scribes of Ras Shamra.

I expect we should all agree that the Genesis version derives from a literary tradition and a story that goes back to the Sumerian through intermediate stages. Its a story that has been copied by scribes and oral traditions since the ice melted and language became complex enough to tell stories. Telling the story of that story should be what this article is about.

To hold that the Tanakh comes before the Mesopotamian version dated to c 2600 BC would require some chronological shifts that I wasn't aware had been proposed.

Perhaps I should ask what date the consensus here assigns to the Book of Genesis and its author and whether it is agree that it incorporates a collection of early literature from other sources.

The idea that the literature incorporated and the Tanakh were not developed separately is new to me. I'd like to hear more about that. Whats the earliest date proposed for the Tanakh?

The way I heard it the Sumerian version, dating from c 2600 BC, was around for about a millenia and widely copied in Sumerian and other languages before being copied in Old Babylon

The 18th century BCE Akkadian Atra-Hasis epic, named after its human hero,[1] contains both a creation myth and a flood account and is one of three surviving Babylonian flood stories. The oldest known copy of the epic tradition concerning Atrahasis[2] can be dated by colophon (scribal identification) to the reign of Hammurabi's great-grandson, Ammi-Saduqa (1646–1626 BCE), but various Old Babylonian fragments exist; it continued to be copied into the first millennium. The Atrahasis story also exists in a later fragmentary Assyrian version, first having been rediscovered in the library of Ashurbanipal,[3] but, because of the fragmentary condition of the tablets and ambiguous words, translations had been uncertain

When do we propose that the rest of the elements in Genesis were picked up? There are as many ancient Egyptian myths in there as there are Sumerian and Akkadian and without the details of the story of Nu and Geb Genesis would have no starting place.Rktect (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rktect - STOP trying to prove your point. The only relevant point here is that, amongst the academics working in this field, there are disparate views held to differing degrees. The only concerns for WP are: what views are held by the academics; to what degree is each view held; can we cite those views. The end. What we ourselves believe is irrelevant to what goes in the article.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again Pico states that "everyone agrees" about the origin of Genesis 1-11. I say you are pure dreaming. Nobody has EVER agreed on this mysterious question, and anyone who says "everyone agrees" about something so inherently controversial is quite simply trying to "push" their own personal POV while stigmatizing other POVs by pretending they do not even exist. Such "ostracization tactics" and peer pressure are exactly the way the Soviet Union scientists often achieved "consensus" - but it is not true consensus, it's not true scientific inquiry, and neither is it an appropriate tactic for an open-source project; it usually backfires, because open-source signals the beginning of the failure of such mentality. It's like saying "everyone agrees" about the origins of the Veda, someone might pretend this, but if you actually look into it, you will see that is far from the case. Nobody has unearthed a signed first edition, we can only guess or surmise about who was the author or authors, how it was composed, and there are abundant contradictory guesses, surmises, and major schools of thought. "Everyone agrees" is saying that anyone who disagrees is therefore "nobody", it's merely a rhetorical means of stifling dissent over what is all purely conjecture and unproven hypothesis anyway, and this is the sheer arrogance that gets to me. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Scholarship on this question:

• Interpretations of the Flood. Martinez and Luttikhuizen (eds). Brill:1999.:

‘The derivative nature of the Biblical Flood narrative or rather the existence of an antecedent Mesopotamian tradition for the early forms of the Biblical story is undeniable. However, the extent to which the later narrative is derived from the earlier tradition remains uncertain. A direct form of literary influence cannot be asserted, as the distinctive features of the respective narratives are too plentiful to allow such an affirmation. All one can say is that the Biblical accounts must have been influenced by the Mesopotamian oral tradition or by a pre-existing series of such orally transmitted traditions.’

• Atra-Hasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood. W.G. Lambert and A.R. Millard. Eisenbrauns:1999 reprint of 1969 OUP:

‘…it is obvious that the differences are too great to encourage belief in direct connection between Atra-hasis and Genesis, but just as obviously there is some kind of involvement in the historical traditions generally of the two peoples.’

• Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context, John H. Walton, Zondervan: 1989:

‘This suggests that we are not dealing with a literary dependence or even a tradition dependence as much as we are dealing with two literary perspectives on a single actual event. To illustrate from another genre, we expect that the Hittite and Egyptian accounts of the battle of Qadesh will exhibit similarities, for they report about the same battle. Their differing perspectives will also produce some differences in how the battle is reported. The similarities do not lead us to suggest literary or tradition dependence. We accept the fact that they are each reporting in their own ways an experience they have in common.’

• “I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11, Richard Hess and David Tsumura (eds.), Eisenbrauns: 1994, p.52:

‘Thorough comparisons have been made between the Flood stories of Genesis and the “Gilgamesh Epic,’ tablet XI, and their interrelationship and priority have been discussed. Heidel discusses the problem of dependence and summarizes three main possibilities that have been suggested:

1. The Babylonians borrowed from the Hebrew account,

2. The Hebrew account is dependent on the Babylonian,

3. Both are descended from a common original.

The first explanation, according to him, finds “little favor among scholars today,” while “the arguments which have been advanced in support of [the second view] are quite indecisive.”

As for the third way of explanation, Heidel thinks that “for the present, at least, this explanation can be proved as little as the rest.’

• “A New Babylonian ‘Genesis’ Story”, “I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11, Richard Hess and David Tsumura (eds.), Eisenbrauns: 1994, p.126f:

‘However, it has yet to be shown that there was borrowing, even indirectly. Differences between the Babylonian and the Hebrew traditions can be found in factual details of the Flood narrative (form of the Ark; duration of the Flood, the identity of the birds and their dispatch) and are most obvious in the ethical and religious concepts of the whole of each composition.

All who suspect or suggest borrowing by the Hebrews are compelled to admit large-scale revision, alteration, and reinterpretation in a fashion that cannot be substantiated for any other composition from the ancient Near East or in any other Hebrew writing.

If there was borrowing then it can have extended only as far as the “historical” framework, and not included intention or interpretation.’

• Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, 801 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1988):

'While many in the past have suggested that the Hebrews borrowed the flood and many other accounts from Babylonian sources and merely purified them of polytheistic elements, even liberal scholarship now finds this view increasingly unacceptable.'

• David Tsumura, Associates for Biblical Research, Bible and Spade (1996) 9:70:

'The similarities between the Genesis account and the “Atra-H̬asis Epic” do not support the idea that Genesis is a direct borrowing from the Mesopotamian but do indicate that Mesopotamian materials could have served as models for Genesis 1–11, as Jacobsen holds (1994:141). P.D.'

• Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, English and Hebrew; commentary in English.; Title on half t.p.: Genesis = Be-reshit., The JPS Torah commentary, 48 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989):

'It is safe to conclude that the parallels between the biblical account of the Flood and the Mesopotamian stories, being so numerous and detailed, are much more than the result of mere coincidence. Yet it cannot be claimed that any version presently known is the direct source of the biblical narrative, for the latter has points of contact with each version while it also contains items independent of them all.'

• Mark F. Rooker, Southern Baptist Journal of Theology Volume 5, vnp.5.3.58 (2001):

'Attempts to relate the accounts, however, have not produced a consensus, and claims of direct literary dependence have been largely abandoned. As G. von Rad stated in 1972: “Today, forty years after the height of the Babel-Bible controversy, the dossier on the relation of the biblical tradition to the Babylonian story of the Flood as it is in the Gilgamesh Epic is more or less closed. A direct dependence of the biblical tradition on the Babylonian is no longer assumed.”'

• W. Hallo, Antediluvian Cities. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 23/3:61–62:

'There is, it is true, considerable vagueness and contradiction in cuneiform literature about the antediluvian traditions. This is not unexpected, even in the light of the latest discoveries. These now make it seem possible that a specific historic flood provided the original inspiration for the Mesopotamian versions of the deluge, and that this particular flood occurred about 2900 BC.'

• Gordon J. Wenham, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary  : Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary, xlvii (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002):

'Within this bare outline the stories of the flood in Gilgamesh (perhaps borrowed from a lost edition of the Atrahasis epic) and in Gen 6–9 are astonishingly similar. This is not to say that the writer of Genesis had ever heard or read the Gilgamesh epic: these traditions were part of the intellectual furniture of that time in the Near East, just as most people today have some idea of Darwin’s Origin of Species though they have never read it.'

• Gordon J. Wenham, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary  : Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary, 159 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002):

'Stories of a great flood are known from cultures around the world (Lang, Anthropos 80 [1985] 605–16), but as might be expected, the closest parallels to the biblical account come from Mesopotamia: “The most remarkable parallels between the Old Testament and the entire corpus of cuneiform inscriptions from Mesopotamia are found in the deluge accounts” (Heidel, Gilgamesh Epic, 224). Quite how these similarities are to be evaluated is another matter; the number of uncertainties is such that firm conclusions are hard to reach.' --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but if "everyone agrees" that hypothesis xyz is the only correct one, then it doesn't matter how many sources say everyone doesn't agree; they are all mistaken you see, because "everyone" does agree. (</sarcasm> I can't tell you how many times I've seen that very same circular argument on wikipedia!) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also .. ?

I'm with PiCo, what is with the word 'also' being in the second sentence? Maybe it's obvious, but you'll have to help me out. Cheers, Ben (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring in the mythologies of Abrahamic religions. Narratives including the Ark are also found in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71)."

If we're not going to mention the specific context until the second sentence, then it makes better sense for NPOV to clarify this sentence with the word "also" -- unless perhaps you are the POV that the Hebrew Bible and the Quran are examples of "mythologies", which is certainly not neutral or consensus. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow you. Can you keep it simple for me please Til? Cheers, Ben (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The deluge stories that become "Noah's Ark" exist in a lot of early languages. Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, and not a few later ones, Aramaic, Greek, Coptic, Arabic before they find the final form we recognize in the Bible, Torah, Koran. Many of the main characters, especially in the early versions are associated with what some have called myths.Rktect (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"what some have called myths" is a bit dismissive, but I get your point. Of course, I think they're all myths. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Some parts of the story may be true. There was a real flood when the Persian Gulf was formed between c 16,000 and 4,000 BC. Sumerian boats were built of resinous wood :ñišù-suþ5, fir or spruce reeds, ad-kub4[KID]and lined with pitch ñišmá...du8. I don't know about the rest of it. Rktect (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And yet language didn't exist 16000 years ago. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Most people date language back before fire but you raise a good point, the difference in complexity between language c 16,000 BC and c 4,000 BC when the flooding reached Dilmun is exponential. The addition of technological advancements in communication and control like horses and sailing ships makes it a lot easier to pass a good story around and add or subtract whatever gods rock your boat. Rktect (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this has really become one of the most fascinating discussions I have seen here lately... Have fun! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The fascinating part is how we are chosing to say what it is that we aren't saying.Rktect (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Til, placing an 'also' into the second sentence is bad English. Your explanation above made no sense because, among other things, your English sucked. Perhaps you can explain, explicitly, why we should adopt such poor English? I get the feeling you think NPOV hinges on the word, but I can't for the life of me think why. Since I can't read minds, please be explicit in your explanation. No hand waving about context, NPOV and POV. Concrete reasoning please. Ben (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you two the principle editors on this article at the moment? Xavexgoem (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Just wondering

Ownership isn't really my thing. If it's broke, I try and fix it. Ben (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't implying ownership :-) I just figure that if both of you are working on the same article, you might as well try to get along somehow. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Good advice for everyone, I guess. Cheers, Ben (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Depends what you mean. There are several 'principle editors' of the body of the article beneath. Then there are 'principle editors' of just the lede sentence. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Is this a dispute over the word "also"? Xavexgoem (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It would seem so. I would like an explanation why it is being removed, since I have repeatedly, repeatedly explained why it shouldn't be, with no intelligent response yet. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me just assume that everyone is trying to the best of their ability to explain why they would like one word added or removed to the lede. Both of you seem to be of the opinion that the other is incapable of communication :-p I don't think this is the case. At any rate, I myself would like to hear what's going on (without scrolling up past stale arguments directed to each other). Xavexgoem (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there isn't much to the argument. Either the word belongs in the sentence or it doesn't. Personally, I think the sentence reads much more clearly without it. Umm, that's it I think. Cheers, Ben (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Did I just stumble across a religious article with a copy-editing dispute? 'Cuz that'd be great. It's usually a LOT worse than that ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Every word conveys a meaning, it's not bad English or just extraneous to include 'also', since it's needed to clarify that the Bible and Quran are not examples of "myths" in the first sentence - that's exactly the disputed POV we are trying to leave neutral and open without deciding for everyone. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, that is the POV Til is trying to push. That the bible contains myths is near universal. Til, leave your barrow at the door mate. As if the word 'also' makes a bit of difference to pushing your POV. It just makes the sentence awkward. Ben (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What matters is trying to phrase our POVs neutrally. How can we make this neutral? Xavexgoem (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Xavexgoem, I admire your enthusiasm, but it's taken us 2-3 months to get this far. You're welcome to run while you still can - I would understand. Anyway, if you hang around, what does NPOV have to do with the word 'also'? It's either bad English, or good English. NPOV doesn't come into it, unless I'm missing something? Ben (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought we already had made it neutral between the two POVs, but the compromise allowing "mythology" to appear in the lede may be breaking down now, because of the constant tweaking to reflect the Bible = mythology POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

← To Ben: I picked up this case from medcab after Vassyana went off to arbcom. You two were edit warring, and since we're all here at the computer I figured now was as good a time as any. Anyway, here we are. Do you have any suggestions to replace "also" with better English, reflecting the compromise that Til just alluded to? Xavexgoem (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, everything somehow kind of worked itself out, which was cool. Things have mostly been quite for a while now, but it seems even a copyedit can be controversial. The problem couldn't be simpler though, either the word 'also' belongs in the second sentence, or it doesn't. Now, I still don't understand why NPOV is a factor here, but I'm hoping Til explains it clearly. Ben (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How many different ways can I explain to you what the word "also" means? It's not just a filler word, it has a meaning. Synonyms: "In addition" "Besides" "Moreover" "Furthermore" Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) It's my understanding that it's over the use of "mythology" to exclusively qualify Noah's Ark, and that "also" gives the appearance that it's both mythological and scriptural, so as not to look like the lede is endorsing one view or another. Is this correct? Xavexgoem (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Check the dates on the medcab Xavexgoem, it's just about the word 'also' now, but I presume that issue has some sort of bearing on this one. I just don't know how. Til, probably not as many ways as a good thesaurus. What does this have to do with the price of fish though? Clear and concrete please Til. Ben (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes Xavexgoem gets it, maybe what he said is clearer than the way I've been trying to get it across. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, didn't read Xavexgoem's reply properly. Ok, so the point of the word 'also' to to try and distinguish between myth and scripture, is this correct Til? Ben (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

More like to leave it open as far as possible, since some do and some do not distinguish between the two. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, how does the word 'also' help here? The first sentence states one fact, the next states the next fact. The 'also' is superfluous, no? Ben (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that the fear is without the word "also" that some readers will conflate the two (i.e., mythology and scripture as one and the same), which is likely to be perceived as non-neutral. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC) And, of course, it has to be neutral ;-)

Reading it without the "also" makes a world of difference to me, it's saying something quite different. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, are there any proposals other than "also". I don't see how it's that bad an English sentence, but I also stay away from MOS and all of Tony1s subpages like the plague, so I wouldn't know :-P. But if that is actually the central contention, then I think the best we could do is come up with better wording if that's to you folks' liking. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

When we first agreed, it was all one sentence joined by "and". That was good enough for me, and it was also grammatical without being a run-on, but it was argued that the specific context of the literature didn't belong in the first sentence and could wait until the second, and tweaked accordingly. That's what led to this. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(←) Ok, so we have two issues. 1) the fear that without the word "also" that some readers will conflate mythology and scripture; and 2) it is likely to be perceived as non-neutral. But, many scriptures contains myths, and this is practically undisputed by the reliable sources. It is not correct to say scriptures are myths though, which a simple dictionary will tell us. So I think this 'fear' doesn't make sense to begin with. As for problem number 2), neutrality is not something to be perceived is it? It is a policy that is to be adhered to. So again, I'm asking myself if this concern makes sense? I don't think a new word is the answer here, the sentence makes sense without the word. Why go looking to stick bits in? Ben (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

An abundance of caution, I suspect. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Or: better safe than sorry

Or POV pushing. It seems to me Til is trying to say in the lead, in a round-a-bout way, that the bible does not contain myths. Ben (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Ben, so you acknowledge it has to be neutral, but it just doesn't have to be "perceived" as neutral... I still think you have a strange understanding of "neutral", or maybe it is like the word "mythology" and there are additional meanings for it that only some academics know about? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Til, there are at least two meanings. A subjective "I like it, it seems to present all sides as fairly as each other, therefore it's neutral" meaning, and an objective "Hmm, this seems to adhere to WP:NPOV" meaning. Guess which one is important here? Ben (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This dispute is much smaller than it looks. There is no elephant in this room. Allegations of POV pushing and other assumptions of bad faith are to be nipped in the bud so long as you two are both editing the same article. Perhaps it would be a good idea to announce our potential conflict of interests (does Til believe that this is all not mythological, and is Ben pushing that this all is. I myself am just the mediator and don't care). Xavexgoem (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of disclosure, yes, I think the Noah's Ark story is a myth. As far as the article goes though, this is not important. What is important is that this is in line with just about every reliable source out there. A quick scroll up (in particular Talk:Noah's_Ark#Synthesis) and you will see a few listed. Cheers, Ben (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This has gone on so long that a lot of it has been bot-archived already. But you will also find Ben's insistence that any religious groups and anyone else who disagrees that it is a myth is inadmissible and fringe because it is wrong. You know, that old circular chestnut. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And Til will now go and find that quote for you. Ben (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It mostly starts with archive 6 as far as I can tell, but it's kind of messy / out of order because of the way the bot waits for a thread to be inactive 30 days before filling up the archive. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How convenient. That's not the first time you've attributed quotes to me falsely either, and yes, I can back that claim up too if anyone wants. Ben (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to turn this into discussion about motive. I'll get back to you guys later. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to drop the discussion about motive, even before Til declares his, or backs up his bogus quotes in my name. Ben (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither of you are pushing a POV; you just think the other guy is. I really think it's that simple. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bringing us back to the original problem then, can the second sentence do without the word 'also'? What does it add to the structure of the first paragraph? Ben (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with the word religious texts? Is it not an accurate statement? It has no point of view and is a entirely factual statement :) the antithethis of POV :) Seddσn ^talk 17:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"Words even :)" Seddσn ^talk 17:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That is 2-3 months worth of talk page discussion. The story is classified as a myth though, just like A Vindication of the Rights of Men is classified as a political pamphlet, or Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy. Trying to hide this particular classification to appease the sensitivities of a minority is not neutral. Ben (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So it's not neutral unless it offends them and calls their beliefs "myths". A very curious application of the term "neutral" that many editors do not seem to share, Ben. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Stick to the facts Til, and quote from WP:NPOV. Do not concoct scenarios or motivations to try and give weight to your argument. Ben (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I could quote the entire page if you can't find it, but since you asked me to quote it, here's my favorite parts: Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides.

Two months, two years, two millenium or two minutes. It is all the same. Concensus changes and so I ask again? what is at fault with the term "religious texts"? Is it inaccurate in any way? Seddσn ^talk 18:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you need the word mythology or myth in there at all. If you think its a myth can't you console yourself that its redundant after you describe it as a religion?

How about this Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring prominently in Abrahamic religions. Narratives that include the Ark are generally found in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71).

Rktect (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Break

As I explained, the story is classified as a myth. There are many different parts to the bible, some of it myth, some of it historical, some of it allegory, etc etc. And what is this about religion? Noah's Ark is not a religion. Ben (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What a mess above. Can people please sign their stuff? I thought the suggestion was Seddon's. Ben (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for adding more, but I have a question. What is wrong with using the word myth, Seddon? Ben (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Noah's ark is part of a religious text used by Abrahamic religions. I'm not a believer and prefer to enjoy if as a legal text with precedent rather than history, but I can see where believers would find the catagorization of their beliefs as myths offensive and a POV. The word narritive allows that its a story and not necessarily either historical or mythical, whats wrong with not taking a position?Rktect (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We're an encyclopaedia. We reflect what the reliable sources on the topic say, not what some people want us to say (or not to say in this case). Ben (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"Reliable" here as he uses it is such an obvious code-word, the litmus test for it of course being, does it agree with the POV that the Biblical canon is composed of myths... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No reputable encyclopedia would knowingly use language its aware some people found offensive. Rktect (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again Til, you attack me. Please explain how the sources I listed above in the Synthesis section are unreliable? Here is another collection: User:Ben_Tillman/Mythology. This is but a sampling of a broad range of sources. And they don't just offer opinions either, they discuss the general consensus, for instance, noting that myth is mainstream. And Rktect, please do some research. Start by checking the sources I just noted (the synthesis section is an easier read to start with). You will note Encyclopaedia Mythica and Encyclopaedia Britannica both use the term, not to mention Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible. Ben (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll stipulate that sources have used the term in the past. What I'm asking is why is it important for us to use exactly that term and no other given it clearly offends some editors to do so? Rktect (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We follow suit Rktect, we do not prescribe usage of terms as our sensitivities see fit. Conversely, why should we avoid material because some editors find it offensive? As I'm sure you know, Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. Ben (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly your position is that its necessary for you to be offensive to comply with the rules of Wikipedia which you find a higher standard than any requirement for common courtesy.Rktect (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'm being offensive at all. I certainly don't find the word offensive. So this begs the question: Can you find some reliable sources that say any great number of people find the word mythology offensive? And you didn't answer my first question: why we should avoid it? Thanks, Ben (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll allow you don't think you are being offensive. What if, despite you didn't know it, you were being offensive; and given how long this discussion has gone on for, appearing to be argumentative and insensitive about it as well. Doesn't that bring us to the answer to your second question? Might it not be more productive to the interests of the encyclopedia to find some more neutral ground? Rktect (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't so clear. If I can give an analogy, Muslim's often claim (over here anyway) that they are offended by women who walk around here 'uncovered'. Now, that is fine, who am I to argue with them? However, it is not the intention of women who walk around 'uncovered' to offend anyone. Likewise, it is not my intention to offend anyone by insisting on standard terminology. Sure, women could cover themselves to appease the sensitivities of the minority Muslim group, and we could prescribe non-standard and less accurate terminology to appease the sensitivities of the minority "the label myth is offensive" group. However, I don't see any good reason to. Some people not liking something is always a shitty reason to avoid it. When the 'thing' not liked is so widespread, it's untenable. Ben (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I found several, but you presumed to disqualify each and every one of them on the grounds that they were wrong because mythology isn't offensive. So now your asking for more sources that argue mythology is offensive, but the ones that say mythology is offensive don't count... Pretty hard bill to fit... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You never seem to bring anything to the table to discuss Til. False quotes, ad hominem arguments and concocted history seems to be your limit. Ben (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As a person more interested in why the story was written than what it says, I can think of a lot of things I'd like to see discussed here other than the language of the opening. Would you allow its a fact based narritive that for people living on the Euphrates river where the Persian Gulf now lies, just around the time civilization began there was a flood and some people survived it in boats? Rktect (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to ask my permission. I'm fine with anything presented in reliable, notable sources, provided due weight is given. I'd suggest starting a new thread for that one though ... Ben (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't intend to waste more space on this but if you would allow its a fact based narritive (citing Michael Roaf Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. Equinox. 1990. ISBN 0-8160-2218-6. p 20 map and discussion gradual sea level rise on the Euphrates between 16,000 and 4,000 BC also Shaika Haya Ali Al Khalifa and Michael Rice, Bahrain through the Ages. KPI. 1986. ISBN 071030112-x. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help) Andrew George, The Epic of Gillgamesh. Penguin. 2000. ISBN No14-044721-0. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help) James B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East. OUP. 1968.Dr. Muhammed Abdul Nayeem, Prehistory and Protohistory of the Arabian Peninsula. Hyderabad. 1990.), why would you insist it be called a myth?

Firstly, I think you're conflating the word 'myth' with 'unfactual'. As I suggested above, I think some more research on your part would be a good idea. Secondly, I insist we follow the standard and neutral terminology found throughout the literature. If you have a problem with their use of the term myth, Wikipedia is not place to address it, or try and fix it. Ben (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking myth to mean unreliable source; ie; its not so much a case of whether its standard and or neutral terminology; there are 500,000 words in the English language, substitutions aren't all that hard. You want a word that immediately casts doubt. You need a word that says right out loud you are dubious, you don't like the fact checking.

You are thinking maybe some parts could be true, but even if they are nobody can prove its all true, they expect you to take them on faith; what kind of editor would I be if I went around doing that? I don't think its so much a case of standard or neutral terminology, you don't like the uncertainty of having myths floating around where somebody might believe them. You're particularly dubious about the part where all those storm gods are causing floods to destroy mankind. You want to put a tag on that.

You are a good editor and because the sources are unreliable on their theories and explanations if it was up to you you'd revert the whole thing. Failing that the sensible thing to do is cast doubt on the entire story regardless of whose sensitivities you trammel on. That's just being responsible and doing your job Rktect (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I even found numerous sources that say "Genesis IS a myth", and they unambiguously mean it to express their POV that it is false. In fact it's not just Tom Paine, the majority of scholarly sources that say "Noah's Ark is a myth" are definitely using the word to push that POV. Guess what, you declared they don't count either, because they aren't using the "right" definition of myth. This is definitely a case for WP:RS/N. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:RS/N

re: "Please explain how the sources I listed above in the Synthesis section are unreliable?" Let's pay attention to logic. I'm not saying your sources are unreliable. They are reliable for establishing one POV. I'm just saying all my many sources I gave that explicitly argue that this is NOT a myth, are also reliable for establishing another POV, which you said they were not because they use the "wrong" dictionary definition. Maybe the only way to settle this is to take my sources to WP:RS/N and ask the folks there to comment if my sources are or are not sufficient for purposes of establishing that not everyone really agrees Genesis is mythical. I have a pretty good idea what they'll say, though. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, lets pay attention to logic. If you present a book that says X is not a myth, but that book is using the definition "myth = false story", then we can not say X is not a myth using the definition "myth = sacred narrative". Right? We can say Y people believe this story is historical, or whatever their position is. This article already does that. This problem is equivalent to the 'theory' problem. There exist plenty of books out there that say evolution is just a theory for instance, but they're using the informal definition "theory = guess, conjecture, etc". In response, our articles on evolution note that some people think evolution is just a guess, conjecture, etc. However, in all of these types of cases, we stand by the terminology used in the literature. We do not revert to the definition "theory = guess" because a few people make that association. Ben (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Which idiot inserted a giant wedge into the tiny crack of disagreement and exploded this argument?

After all the good work done to get so close to a compromise, why have we lost our way again? It is clear that Ben and Til have a fundamental disagreement about the implication of the word 'myth'. I do not believe it is helpful to re-hash all of the arguments about that, since we are so close to a compromise that satisfies both sides. Can we just concentrate on finding the slight modification that would satisfy Til's concerns and still retain the meaning that Ben wants?

To my mind, the current conflict has arisen because Til wishes to include 'also' at the start of the second sentence. His concern being that, as it currently stands, the reader may conflate 'mythologies' with 'Bible/Quran'. Ben doesn't see a problem with that.

The original compromise was reached because those on Til's side of the argument could accept Noah's Ark being included in mythologies, so long as the wording did not state or imply that either a) the story of the ark (as found in the Bible/Quran) is myth and b) it was not implied that the Bible/Quran are myths. I do not believe that Ben is trying to imply the latter. Clearly, however, the arguments above reflect the fact that Ben is happy to call the Bible/Quran stories of the ark 'myths', while Til is arguing that that is simply one POV. For me, the problem is simple:

• Til is correct that (albeit subtly) the current wording allows the reader to infer that the 'narratives' are 'mythologies'
• Ben is correct that Til's attempt to insert 'also' produces unwieldy, poor grammar.

Whilst I would rather have bad grammar than a wrong implication, I am sensitive to the fact that a future editor would attempt to 'correct' the grammar and produce a wording that is even worse than what we have at present.

I am going to think long and hard at finding an alternative way to phrase this. In the meantime, could you two please stop going over old ground in which you have spent months failing to see each others' viewpoint and concentrate instead on a compromise?--FimusTauri (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that we need only find a way to word the second sentence that divorces the subject from the first sentence. Maybe inserting 'most notably' (back) into the sentence will achieve this:

Narratives that include the Ark are most notably found in the Bible and the Quran.

Perhaps a more radical alternative might be something like:

The stories of the Ark all ultimately derive from the accounts found in the Hebrew Bible (Genesis chapters 6 to 9) and the Quran (Suras 11 and 71).

This latter will no doubt provoke the arguments about the ultimate derivation in Sumer, but the stories of Noah's ark all come from the Bible/Quran accounts.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Ben is correct that Til's attempt to insert 'also' produces unwieldy, poor grammar." How so? Do you have any source explaining why the word "also" might produce "poor grammar"? Grammar is one of my best areas, and there is absolutely nothing I have ever heard of that's ungrammatical about the word "also". It construes perfectly well, conveys and clarifies an important meaning, and may easily be diagrammed (It's an adverb, modifying the verb "are found"). As I said before, some acceptable synonyms that may usually be substituted in its place include "Additionally", "besides", "moreover", and "furthermore" - none of which are unwieldy or ungrammatical, any more than "also". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

First off I have no dog in this hunt; I'm not a believer, I just find it dumb. Ben has been arguing this point right here to pretty much to the exclusion of comments on any other article for about two years, Til Eulenspiegel has been letting you know he finds the language offensive and FimusTauri has been trying to broker a compromise all that time. Unless it has just become a social thing where you guys like to hang out together and argue, I suggest you submit it to some sort of binding mediation or arbitration and have done with it. Wikipedia has procedures for this. The English language has enough words in it and allows enough grammatical flexibility that you can say what you want to say in other ways. It certainly isn't helping the encyclopedia in any way I can see.Rktect (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahead of you Rktect. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 60#Mythology & Religion.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I've reverted the IP edit back to Fimus' last edit. Fimus, there was good reason to remove the 'ologies', but thats something we can leave alone for the minute I'm sure. I would be ok with your first suggestion, but as you guessed, the second is likely to generate more controversy, so I think it's best to just leave that stone alone for now too. I'm happy to participate in the village pump discussion, but I won't get a chance to comment there for a few hours. Cheers, Ben (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert Oden as theoogy authority, give me a break

reposted from my talkpage:

Here you go:

The simple and convenient view that all myths are stories about the gods [in reference to earlier discussions about polytheism] continued play the lead role in discussions by biblical scholars about myth and the Bible for a surprisingly long period in the twentieth century — surprisingly long since, as we will see, this definition was dismissed as unfair and inadequate by a wide range of scholars outside the area of biblical study. A look at almost any of the most widely used introductions to the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament, or at similarly influential biblical theologies, will show that this remained the case until very recently.

In Robert A. Oden's The Bible Without Theology, page 47. He puts a limit on its lead role until at most the 1970's. No dictionary even contains this restriction any more though. You will note, I found a reference that discusses the state of affairs in modern research - I didn't just look for lists of books that use a definition I like. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Until very recently" eh... he sure sounds authoritative, but I'm not sure he can speak for everyone around the globe, he can't speak for Muslim scholars for instance, or is this something like a fatwah? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

His authoritah is second only to Eric Cartman, obviously. Unfortunately, as Cartman is a member of the World Atheist Agenda (otherwise known as WAA!), they agree on this particular point. Ben (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(irrelevant responses snipped)

What's really hilarious is that he isn't even a theologian, but a small college president, and his foray into theology was written in 2000, where he optimistically expresses in the quote above in so many words, "The view that myths are polytheistic has ceased recently, as it was found to be politically incorrect". But what's REALLY hilarious is that I have found even more books written by bonafide theologians AFTER 2000 than before, making that same un-PC point that he says is outdated. I guess they didn't all stop it just because he told them to, after all. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comments about Oden are extremely misleading as to describe him just as a 'small college president' is to ignore most of his academic career. The idiom 'in so many words' means "exactly; explicitly; in plain, clear language". Is that what you mean?

'Foray' is insulting, and his book is referenced in a number of other scholarly books and journal articles. A number of these date before 2000, his 'foray' was 1987, you are referring to a new edition. The first was published by Harper & Row, the 2000 one by University of Illinois Press. Given his academic background, his well received book published 20 years ago, I don't see how you can claim he isn't a theologian.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

You and Fimus are impossible to please. He accused me of refusing to add refs (which is rediculous), but instead of arguing the point I just did it. You revert me. I can't win. Honestly, I don't think either of you should be editing religious articles. Neither of your actions are helping the encyclopaedia at all. Ben (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's still a POV source. Here's one less POV source:

"In using the terms myth and mythical in relation to Genesis, we encounter greater misgivings. Not only do the terms have unsavory connotations in popular usage, but an impressive array of biblical scholars have argued that both myth and mythical modes of thought are absent from the Bible. Myths are what the Egyptians and Babylonians believed. 'The God of Israel has no mythology,' declared G. Ernest Wright. 'The religion of Israel suddenly appears in history, breaking radically from the mythopoeic approach to reality.' This position follows the earlier lead of Hermann Gunkel who had argued that myths are "stories about the gods", and since a myth requires at least two gods to make a story, the Old Testament contains no myths, though some mythical materials are alluded to... Obviously if one restricts the term myth to polytheistic materials, biblical materials are not only not mythical but anti-mythical..." -- The Meaning of Creation by Conrad Hyers, p. 99. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, maybe you should read the first source you quoted again. Ben (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hyers seems a pretty good guy. The issue I have right now is Til's selective use of a quote from him. Is this deliberate or is Til just being very, very sloppy? Can we take a look at p. 128, "G.+ernest+wright"+"god+of+Israel+has+no+mythology"&num=100#PPA126,M1?

The story does not dwell on the origin and nature of inanimate things (sun, moon, stars, earth). It is interested in living things and the source of life. It is this emphasis which made the myth so immediately relevant to the Yahwist's insistence that Yahweh, not Baal and Ashtoreth, was Creator of life and Lord of fertility. What is detailed in the story is the provision of water necessary for life and the creation of various forms of life: human beings, vegetation, and animals (cattle, beasts of the field, birds of the air, and the serpent). Interestingly, fish are not mentioned, suggesting that the story in the form in which we have it is being told by pastoral peoples, whose familiarity is with wells and desert oases rather than with rivers, lakes, and seas. The story of Adam and Eve in the garden is not unlike a type of origin myth that may be found in many cultures in many parts of the world. The details of such stories and the issues they choose to treat may differ considerably, but the common form is mythological. Such stories are quite anthropomorphic, as is the biblical story, where God breathes life into a figurine molded out of clay, walks in the garden in the cool of the evening, and makes clothing for the first couple. The serpent is also more clever than the other wild creatures and not only talks but carries on a conversation with Eve. Such elements are typical of ancient myths, as are the sundry features of existence that the myth accounts for in passing: why snakes have no legs like other reptiles, why they "eat dust" why there is a special "enmity" between snakes and humans, why humans and not animals are embarrassed by their nakedness and wear clothes, why there is pain in childbirth. Other, more substantial features of existence are also accounted for in like manner: the relationship between male and female, between animals and humans, and between humans and God, as well as the sources of toil, suffering, and death.

And how about his definition of myth on p107? In a religious context, however, myths are stoned vehicles of supreme truth, the most basic and important truths of all. By them people regulate and interpret their lives and find worth and purpose in their existence. Myths put one in touch with sacred realities, the fundamental sources of being, power, and truth. They are seen not only as being the opposite of error but also as being clearly distinguishable from stories told for entertainment and from the workaday, domestic, practical language of a people. They provide answers to the mysteries of being and becoming, mysteries which, as mysteries, are hidden, yet mysteries which are revealed through story and ritual. Myths deal not only with truth but with ultimate truth.

And why did Til stop where he did? The paragraph continued Yet this narrow and negative use of the term may eliminate too much and obscure rather than clarify the differences and the similarities involved. If one wishes to indicate that the biblical authors rejected polytheism, and hence polytheistic myths, one may as well say that directly. If one further wishes to indicate that the Hebrews had a strong sense of God's acting in history, especially Hebrew history, whereas polytheistic religions tended to focus on the cycles of the sun, moon, stars, and seasons, one can deal with that issue without identifying myth with cyclical time. As J. L. McKenzie has put it, "what distinguishes these passages of the OT from ancient myths is not the patterns of thought and language, which seem in every respect to be the same, but the Hebrew idea of God. ... The OT rejects all elements which are out of character with the God whom they knew. But what they knew of God could be expressed only through symbolic form and concrete cosmic event." Myth and History This emphasis upon the mythic and symbolic should not be taken to mean that everything in Genesis is nonhistorical or without interest in history. Both the Priestly and Yahwist accounts of creation are the beginning paragraphs of histories of Israel which commence with the origins of nature and humanity and move through a kind of universal history to the particular history of Israel. Using the word history for all of these materials, however, is misleading if we mean by the term a single, uniform concept of historical construction, such as modern historians might attempt to achieve

dougweller (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course I understand Hyers. Here is what I wrote when I added his quote to the huge list of various perspectives at User:Til_Eulenspiegel/Religious_narratives_as_sacred_canon NOTE: This author does go on to argue that in his view, this idea of myth "may be" too restrictive to be useful for his purposes; but at least he acknowledges that other significant schools of thought actually do exist -- like any serious scholar would. If we are to be serious scholars, we can likewise take note of his balanced view that "Not only do the terms have unsavory connotations in popular usage, but an impressive array of biblical scholars have argued that both myth and mythical modes of thought are absent from the Bible." Those are his words, but similar balanced language appearing in the article has been termed "inadmissible". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Taken to ArbCom

All interested parties, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration #Use of "myth" in religious articles--FimusTauri (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Parallels

I took a look at Britannica to see how it handles this material. They mostly use the term story and this seems better in the lead, if the terms myth/mythology seem too loaded. But what struck me more is that they point to antecedents, "The story of the Flood has close affinities with Babylonian traditions of apocalyptic floods in which Utnapishtim plays the part corresponding to that of Noah." and indicate that details of the story were derived from this. Our article says almost nothing of other stories of the Deluge and this seems a significant gap. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you see the end of the section The Ark and science in the 19th century? Cheers, Ben (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I missed that and it covers the point adequately, thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Find sources template

Is it really necessary? Ben (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it helpful. For example, I looked at the link it provides to Google Scholar and was interested in the first reference to this paper which contains some interesting discussion of the analagous problem nowadays of preserving endangered species. This would form a nice sub-section because it would shed some light on the feasibility of the Biblical ark. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not questioning that google is helpful, I'm questioning whether a template pointing to google is necessary on Wikipedia talk pages. I mean, there are plenty more helpful sites we could link to than a google search page, and the most useful should be in the external links section of articles. It seems like clutter to me, but I'm open to reasoning otherwise. Ben (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I routinely place this up on the talk page of any article that I work upon and you are the first editor to object. It seems more helpful in improving articles than project templates, of which we have a surfeit here. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that doesn't convince me it isn't clutter. I'm removing it for now, but if others think it should be here they are welcome to revert me. Cheers, Ben (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Second the "clutter", especially in a (currently under review) FA with as many templates as we have already. Try to keep templating down, not maxed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• While we have this section, we should include the material in question so that other editors may see what we are bickering about and can use the links for further research upon current issues. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes to text

Til, please discuss changes to the intro here before implementing them. The current intro (minus ref) was the result of months of discussion. Consensus can change, but please seek that first. Cheers, Ben (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again you have tampered with the consensus and it now gives the impression that a POV is an uncontested fact. Since it has been shown with references that this "fact" is indeed contested, WP:NPOV requires that we use attributory language, specifically to avoid giving that impression. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously complaining about me adding references? Ben (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not as long as the disputed POV is attributed per WP:NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Til, from the sources you've produced, your "attribution" fails WP:UNDUE by giving the impression that the common academic usage is confined to a few sources, while giving priority to the uncommon dispute as to the usage. If the view you're putting forward is held by a significant minority, it should also be in the article and should be appropriately attributed to make this clear. . . dave souza, talk 18:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a fact tag. if it gets removed, I'll take the issue to ANI. pleas e support this use, or rephrase the sentence. --Ludwigs2 19:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You're claiming that any literary critic who says the Bible is mythology is "due" and "correct" while any theologian who says it isn't is "fringe", "undue" and inadmissible to a theological topic. This is exactly what entails arbitration as a case of WP:BIAS. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've opened an ANI on the removal of the fact tag, here. please feel free to weigh in, but keep in mind that this ANI only refers to the presence of the 'fact' tag. I don't want to drag the entire debate over into yet another venue. --Ludwigs2 20:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Where you were indisputably told you were wrong. DreamGuy (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

i'm amazed that this dispute is still raging - i thought it was all over and done and consensused away. just for the record, in a spirit of putting one's cards on the table, i can see no reason why the words 'myth' and 'mythology' should appear in the lead - about the least important thing about the ark story is this. and the article itself singularly does not discuss the question of genre - if it did, there would be room for a mention in the lead, but it doesn't.

anyway, here's what "magic words" (i.e., wikipedia:words to avoid) has to say about myth/mythology - i've put it in point form, and made a brief note about where i think this arrticle falls vis a vis these criteria:

• Myth has a range of formal meanings in different fields. (very true - but not very useful for our article, unless we have a section in it on genre)
• It can be defined as a story of forgotten or vague origin, religious or supernatural in nature, which seeks to explain or rationalise one or more aspects of the world or a society. (the ark story meets all these criteria - although you could question whether it's origin is vague or forgotten)
• All myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that used or originated the myth. (which covers the ark story).
• In less formal contexts, it usually refers to an unreal or imaginary story. (which is Til's problem - it's a genuine point, since the article fails to clarify whether it's using the word in a formal or informal sense)

Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception. However, except in rare cases (e.g., urban myth), informal use of the word should be avoided, and should not be assumed. Avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean "something that is commonly believed but untrue". (so is this a scholarly article, or one of those rare cases where an informal sense is intended? i have grave doubts about wiki as a scholarly medium, but just the same i have to admit that it aspires to that status, and so the formal use should probably be assumed)

• When using myth in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use the utmost care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally, for instance by establishing the context of sociology or mythology. Furthermore, be consistent; referring to "Christian beliefs" and "Hindu myths" in a similar context may give the impression that the word myth is being used informally. (this would seem to be the key passage - the article has to be clear that it's using "myth" in the formal sense. i rather feel that it already does this, but opinions may differ)

anyway, it might be useful to use this definition as the basis for the discussion. PiCo (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, PiCo, that section in WP:WTA was written by Ben without consultation or consensus and so (IMO) lacks any validity as a reference.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be the same "Ben" who insists on saying "myth" and linking it to "mythology" rather than just saying "mythology". Right? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good points, Pico. According to our firm cornerstone policies, anything ostensibly posited as an underlying "fact" or "truth" in the lede sentence, has to be fully expounded, with all possible points of view, (not excluding or denigrating any significant ones), somewhere in the body of the article.

We have heard much sophistry from certain self-described atheist editors, as to why only certain points of view are "valid", and other points of view "invalid". While there are many articles on Hinduism, Mormon, Islam, etc. that respect in as careful language as possible, what these editors sneeringly call "devotional" pov, this type are never satisfied except where they can be as purposefully provocative as possible, pick and choose which religions to slander, and incorporate their own selective pet prejudices into this project, as if they were indisputable and universally accepted "teachings" that all must learn, and refusing to allow any other even to be mentioned -- thus the incessant "tinkering" with established compromises, designed to push their POV down everyone else's throat. This isn't really helping the project to explain and describe what people's contemporary beliefs are one bit; it is more like their own "prescriptive" vision for what they "should" believe. The pejorative label "mythology" has always suited their task admirably well, and numerous theologians have actively responded and commented on this very same constant characterization of their scripture over the centuries, but it would seem they don't want this viewpoint to be mentioned because they are afraid of it. It's practically impossible to achieve true neutrality, when true neutrality becomes their enemy to the point that they must redefine the word "neutral" to fit their views. Wikipedia's definition may be "giving both / all views", while their curiously redefined "neutrality" apparently means "giving only one view, and trashing other views".

The required solution is a section entitled "Disputes about genre". We already have plenty of quotes, indeed entire books, from prominent and qualified authors, that are a resource for the longstanding controversy over how to interpret the genre of this story in particular. In fact, there is enough material to have a dedicated sub-article Disputes over the genre of Noah's Ark. What they don't like is that such an article, or section of this article, would have to be "neutral" (by wikipedia's definition, not theirs) and that means it would have to present ALL sourced and significant viewpoints, and their self-imposed "monopoly" dictating how all we readers must interpret the Bible / Quran, would then come to an end. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of "myth" or even "mythology", it should simply say "story", which is a neutral term and leaves room for both the literalists and the allegorists, if that's a proper word. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why complicate it at all. What's wrong with

• Noah's Ark is a large vessel featured in the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an, in which Noah, his family and a stock of the world's animals are saved from a deluge.?

Of course, according to some people, we have to say its a myth.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There are countless 'things' in the Bible and the Qur'an. But when I stumble across an article on one of these things, it's nice to know what sort of thing I'm reading about. Is it something mythical? Historical? There are quite a few categories. On top of that, the current structure allows us to note where stories are contained precisely (without the first sentence becoming too unwieldy), and allows discussion of the Genesis story to be given in its own paragraph. Honestly, I think the current structure works nicely. I don't think your suggestion is an improvement, and your prime motivation seems to be to remove the word myth, not improve the article, which is worrying. Ben (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention that I don't think we should be mentioning particular religious works in the first sentence. For instance, we don't introduce Duat as featuring in the Amduat, we introduce is as (equivalently) featuring in Egyptian mythology. This is a much more helpful way of introducing these topics. Ben (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It most likely is a myth, a folk tale, a legend. But that's just my opinion. It's a matter of speculation and faith, not proof. The scientific questions about the reality, or otherwise, of this story are discussed fully in the text. The prime motivation to say something about a "myth" in the intro is to brow-beat the reader by informing them right away that in the opinion of the wikipedia editors, it's a fairy tale; thus repelling many readers with an obvious POV-push. That's not how wikipedia is supposed to work. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Bugs, we now have hundreds of kilobytes of text "discussing" this. More accurately - two sides talking at each other. Ben and co will never understand what neutral actually means (I am trying to assume good faith, because if they really do understand then they are simply trying to POV-push), so the only recourse is take this higher (oh, me! I can't do that - that's forum shopping!)--FimusTauri (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I never objected to you looking for outside opinion, I objected to you never stopping to do it. Ben (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we treat different religions differently. Our articles talk quite happily and I think correctly about Hindu myths, for instance. Myth is, I think, correct academically. As for WP:WTA a number of editors have edited it since Ben's edits, 2 of them in fact editing the section on 'myth', and no one has objected to Ben's edit there or on the talk page. I don't think that 'story' would be acceptable to everyone either. What we do need I think is to be clear what 'myth' means, and in this case it is quite different from fairy tale. dougweller (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the modification of Abrahamic religions makes clear we don't mean a fairy tale or similar. We're talking about myths with respect to religion, not simply stopping short at calling something a myth and leaving the reader to decide what we mean. Cheers, Ben (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Doug, in fact I have found a number of scholars of Hinduism specifically objecting to the characterization of their sacred texts and beliefs as "myths". To be clear, I feel exactly the same neutrality ought to apply to articles about those subjects. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you need to get to work on that. Although neutrality would I think recognising that academically we can use the word myth for all religions (hm, maybe a few exceptions, but basically all). Meanwhile, we seem to have two relevant categories that have been around for a while,Category:Christian mythology and Category:Abrahamic mythology. dougweller (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no set definition of "myth(ology)". There are dozens around WP and it is used differently by different sources. To say "experts use it" is a sweeping generalisation. "Myth" can be used in any religious article, so long as the reader understands what the cited source means by the word. If all of the sources' definitions included all of the stories cited as "myths", then there would be no problem. Unfortunately, this is the opposite of the case.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Then that's exactly what the mythology box is meant to prevent. By all means put it in there, it's worth the formatting issues to avoid this problem by unambiguously defining the word. NathanLee (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So use the definition of mythology a on the mythology article, where the people who ought to know congregate instead of trying to use definitions from random articles by random people as some sort of evidence of anything. DreamGuy (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again the argument boils down to "we can't offend people's religious beliefs" Til Eulenspiegel. You can try and wrap this up as "neutrality" but that's not what neutrality is. Neutral treatment does not mean "will not cause offence to any beliefs". I can find you another religion that demands that this story is labelled as "blasphemous evil lies", so to not label it as such would cause them offence. Anyhow, at least examine the core of your argument and perhaps you won't have this keep popping up again and again. NathanLee (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

ugh. let me nip this particular bit of illogic in the bud, if possible. the double-negative phrase Neutral treatment does not mean "we will not cause offence to any beliefs" (note the doubled 'not') is not the same as the positive phrase Neutral treatment means "we are allowed to cause offence to any beliefs". This is a particularly bad application of double-negative reasoning, and I really wish you (and the others who love this line) would stop using it. no one is saying that we have to be avoid causing offense at all costs; what we are saying is the we shouldn't go out of our way to cause offense if there is an easy alternative. let's not hear that particular bit of irrationality again, ok? --Ludwigs2 03:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That "offensive" argument as a reason has been stated many times, dig through the archive pages from about 5 or 6 onwards and you'll see it. On your pedantic note: that phrase is fine, note the quote marks to separate out the defintion so that it is quite clear what is meant (pity you can't use your skills to read some dictionary definitions of the word you want banned from anything to do with christianity). The irrational side is that we can't use an appropriate word for this topic (as per Britannica, as per dictionary definitions as per the use of "mythology" all over the place).

I'll refer you to the Mohammed images issue: one can much more easily find examples of images of Mohammed causing offence, yet WE DO NOT CENSOR. You twits are arguing for your own definitions of myth as "hate speech" or something ("communist term" was it TE?) to take precedence over dictionaries and various sources. First up there's been no attempt to show that by calling this piece of mythology (consistent with all definitions that have been put on the table, the myth box etc) "mythology" that that is to deliberately cause offence or indeed causes grave offence to anything other than a niche view of fundamentalist types. Even if you did, I'll refer you to Mohammed's pictures as an example of a worse "offence" with a death count who would like to censor wikipedia like you do. I've posted up a link to the last pope's views and to an Australian archbishop who don't have issues with the OT being regarded as mythology. So really: we've got editors who are MORE offended and MORE literal than top religious leaders.

I'll state once again: it is an IMPOSSIBLE goal to not offend beliefs. The list of things that might offend is infinite. Let's take the view of atheists or believers of other religions than Christianity, Islam and Judaism: that this story is not labelled as complete fiction is offensive. Are you going to make allowance for not offending that particular significant viewpoint? It's impossible, so what we go on is academic use and dictionary definitions and how other religions ("living" and "dead") are treated and if it fits within those then so be it. Greek mythology exists as does Christian mythology as does Norse mythology. No difference between them whatsoever except that you're asking for exceptions because your religion of choice might have someone getting offended by it.

It's time you few accept that your very easily offended beliefs are niche and this ongoing attempt to censor wikipedia is dishonest and a waste of time. I suggest you go (or return) to conservapedia if you want your biblical stories presented as factual and with nothing offensive to your religious beliefs. NathanLee (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Mediation assistance

I would be willing to provide informal mediation assistance to try and help this area reach resolution. Alternatively, I can help find an editor or two with solid dispute resolution experience to help everyone move forward. What does everyone think? Also, do people think that this article needs additional administrative oversight? (That is, would it be helpful to find a couple more uninvolved administrators to keep an eye on thing?) --Vassyana (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you can start by asking DreamGuy why he has accused me of editing in bad faith and attempting to bias the article towards my religious beliefs. He hasn't provided any evidence for this yet, but I've asked him to. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Liberal and non-Fundamentalist interpretations"

what sort of category of "popular" interpretations is that? "liberal and non-fundamentalist"? Wouldn't any liberal automatically be non-fundamentalist, or are there fundamentalist liberal Christians? Also, what part of this is about "popular interpretations"? The section appears simply to try to convey mainstream biblical scholarship. The "The Ark in post-Renaissance scholarship" has a "19th century" section, but no "current biblical scholarship" one. We need that. But we don't need a section telling us "some Christians are also non-fundamentalists and take a more relaxed view". This should go without saying here, since the topic of this article isn't "what is Christian fundamentalism". --dab (𒁳) 18:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edit makes general good sense, but I have a query regarding one section:

Non-Fundamentalist Christians, by contrast, 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.

This appears to say that "more liberal Christians" retain a belief in the historicity - ie that all of the more liberal Christians retain this belief. Should this actually be referring to a subset of liberal Christians who happen to retain this belief?--FimusTauri (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"Liberal Christianity" appears to include "any Christian who isn't a lunatic bible-thumper". This isn't a proper category in itself but simply coined in order to distinguish regular people who are also Christians from who have switched off their brains the moment they saw the light. It is highly problematic to treat "liberal Christians" as a group, let alone one who holds certain views on Noah's Ark. The Noah story is the Hebrew flood myth, period. No "liberal Christian" will hold any particular views on it since it really has nothing to do with Christianity except as a memorable and venerable story illustrating the general notion of "salvation" central to Christianity. --dab (𒁳) 10:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Then surely it makes sense to simply say "...among those Christians who retain a belief..."--FimusTauri (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Excessive literalist details

Literalist details
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Literalist evaluation The following are evaluations based on the assumption that the Genesis account is to be taken literally as describing a historical Bronze Age naval expedition. 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 (100.28 metres) 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 [i.e. modern timber-hulled] 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 paper from the Korea Association of Creation Research 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. Practicality Could the Ark have been constructed from timber as described in the Genesis narrative, and still support 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 BC 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 travelled (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 variation to avoid inbreeding and reconstitute a healthy population. Numerous Biblical literalist websites, while claiming that none of these problems is insurmountable, give varying answers on how to resolve them.

I've removed the sections detailing seaworthiness, practicality, capacity and logistics and placed them under the above hat. Per WP:UNDUE, way too much article space was devoted to it. Is there anything from the above that people think should be left in the article, or is the literalist overview / searches for the ark sections I've left in the article enough? Ben (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• The two sections about Seaworthiness and Practicality both seem good, being well-sourced and providing much good information about the ship qua ship. Our article should focus upon the topic of the ark itself since that is the title. More general background about Noah, Great Flood or Deluge is covered in other articles and so we need less about them here. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur. In addition, this material all represents the very discussions which are typically held on the Ark among Fundamentalists, non-Fundamentalists, and non-believers. Far from being an 'excessive literalist details', it is a carefully written and well referenced section presenting in a balanced manner the key subjects and arguments which are covered when the Ark is discussed today. It is not undue weight, because these are precisely the issues concerning the Ark which are discussed most today, by the most number of people. Removing it makes no sense whatsoever. The title 'Literalist Evaluation' is completely misleading, since the topic of the section is the critical evaluation of the Ark by non-literalists. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ben that this seems a bit of a case of perhaps over-promoting a bunch of pseudoscience or pure made up ideas from young Earth creationist websites (are these really worthy of such a big chunk..), some which are just blogs or hardly very professional. Sure the text says "according to" a lot, but it does run the risk of just promoting verbatim unpublished, propaganda sites.

• [1] describes anyone questioning the story as "scoffers"
• [2] is broken
• [3] and [4] - only one is needed (same for answersingenesis site links)

I say cull it. There's references from decent websites in there, so perhaps a bit of selective culling. NathanLee (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't 'over-promoting' anything. It isn't even promoting it in any way. It's simply describing the various defenses of the Ark's historicity. It is not promoting any of them as verbatim, and it includes robust criticism of these views. What reason do you have for suppressing mention of these views? The material in this section is the most commonly encountered material on this subject, in both religious and secular literature. It doesn't matter where you look, these are the most commonly discussed issues and the most commonly presented arguments, on both the religious and secular side. The historicity of the Ark is the most hotly debated part of the entire subject. If you don't want this information in the article itself, then it certainly warrants a separate article on discussions of the Ark's historicity. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's giving undue weight to a tiny minority. Noisy creationists have a lot to say about evolution too, and their noise is probably the most commonly discussed issue with respect to evolution in the public arena. That doesn't mean the evolution article focuses on that. As far as reliable scholars on this topic go, due weight should be accorded to the mythology, development and interpretation of the story. Coverage of the Ark itself (with respect to the three things I just mentioned at a minimum) follows immediately. Coverage of the Ark as if it were historical, either for or against, should be strictly tied to any literalist discussion in the article, which itself must be kept to a minimum. Ben (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why it's giving undue weight to a tiny minority? You're saying that the view the Ark couldn't have been built is 'a tiny minority'? Do I have that clear? I would understand this statement if the section under question only consisted of a presentation of the views of people who believe the Ark was a historical vessel, but it isn't. It's a presentation of skeptical critical assessment of the Ark by people who don't believe it was a historical vessel, and the responses of those who do. As I have pointed out already, coverage of the Ark in just about any material you care to mention, in electronic or print media, is focused largely on these issues. These are the most frequently discussed topics when the subject is raised in either religious or secular literature, so you can hardly claim that critical assessment of the Ark is 'a tiny minority'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I just disagree that serious scholars spend any real amount of time debunking an historical ark. Yes they have done this, and yes we should cover it, but I don't think it should be taking up around a third of the article. Either positively or negatively, we're giving enormous weight to an issue that doesn't receive a lot of attention from scholars these days (in my opinion). The meat of the article should discuss things like I suggested above. I'm not opposed to starting a new article as you suggested, provided we keep to a summary here. The evolution article did something similar with objections to evolution. I hope that clarifies how I feel. Ben (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, the material in this section is the most commonly encountered material on this subject, in both religious and secular literature. It doesn't matter where you look, these are the most commonly discussed issues and the most commonly presented arguments, on both the religious and secular side. These details of practicality are the most hotly debated part of the entire subject. For an topic to be notable it doesn't simply have to be supported or even well represented in the scholarly literature. See WP:NOTE. Given that a 2004 ABC News poll indicated 60% of Americans believe in the historicity of the Ark, and given that criticism of the Ark dominates skeptical discussions on just about any skeptic/atheist/science Website, it can hardly be considered non-notable. The National Centre for Science Education has at least four articles on the practicality of the Ark (here, here, here, and here), and that's without including the separate articles it has on the flood, or the many references to the Ark in articles on other subjects. If you want it as a separate article I'm happy to do that, but I really don't think it can be described as a non-notable view. It's the most commonly discussed topic of the entire subject. --Taiwan boi (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I (and I presume Ben) are not suggesting that the overall story is not noteworthy, but ultra fine details about purely hypothetical stuff (e.g. the emperor's new clothing type conversations) are the very definition of fringe theory (I don't even like to use the term "theory" because it's as far removed from scientific "theory" as you can get). Even if the bible is assumed true: there's no evidence for most of these discussions (I could put forward that the animal dung was turned by angels into feed so the animals just kept eating their own dung.. As much proof exists for that theory than some put forward by those creationist sites). The world is larger than the USA (which is quite unique amongst developed nations in it's high professed level of religion) and while there may be groups living in very religious areas who devote their lives to websites pondering whether Noah packed wholegrain or white bread sandwiches for the first day of the flood: that doesn't mean they're worth devoting large chunks of a wikipedia article to. That the literal story is unequivocally rejected by science (and biblical scholars and church heads) is probably why you won't find a deluge (no pun intended) of professionals debunking the story currently. Creationism has no basis in science, it never did: thus isn't subject to the same process of science to overturn an existing scientific theory. So while it is a viewpoint and noteworthy, there are limits to how deep a dive into the beliefs we can justify before it is violating the fringe theory/pseudoscience policies. The scientific answer is "of course there are issues of practicality as the story has no proof and contradicts many findings across many fields".

That organisation you linked to appears to be purely about defending science (text books, syllabus) against the onslaught of creationist non-scientific rubbish that keeps popping up in the bible belt of the USA. It's natural they might have some articles on aspects of creationism, but for scientific journals to devote page space to a long-debunked story is pretty unlikely as it's not "under debate" in the scientific community. NathanLee (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not suggested that scientific journals devote page space to a long-debunked story. There appears to be some confusion here over what constitutes WP:NOTE. What you describe as 'ultra fine details' are the very details which are most commonly discussed in any treatment of the Ark, either religious or secular. Such treatment does not have to be in scholarly journals in order to constitute WP:NOTE. That the literal story is unequivocally rejected by science (and biblical scholars and church heads), is exactly what I want referred to in the article, and I don't see why the reasons for that rejection aren't worth of a mention. As I said earlier, I'm happy for them to be included in a separate article, but I really don't think it's justifiable to say they aren't noteworthy. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd just be a little worried about having big swathes of "creationist websites say xxxyyy" as the nature of the internet does not lend itself to differentiating crackpot niche stuff from any that's got more than a few people agreeing with certain ideas. E.g. A particular creationist site might exists solely to talk about riding styles of Adam and Eve on their dinosaur saddles (did eve ride sides addle? Did herbivores get in trouble for snacking on their fig leaves?), but without any sort of publication outside the web or direct references to publications it's really just another blog site in terms of referenceability. We can find websites that have just about every idea imagined, doesn't mean they're particularly noteworthy. An xkcd comic springs to mind. Anyhow, if you've got suggestions on how we get the material away from "websites say xxx" then I'm all ears. It just seems like the group that takes this 100% literally true and would bother discussing this stuff is not backed by the upper echelons of the churches (e.g. pope/archbishop level dismissal of literal treatment). NathanLee (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you say here. But Wikipedia's definition of notability refers to content which constitutes the most commonly discussed topics on a particular subject. It's not simply about how much exposure they have in scholarly journals. It's not about whether they're factual or fictional. The issues covered in the 'Historicity' section are the most common subjects discussed by anyone who writes on the Ark, whether they're religious or secular, whether their approach is skeptical or apologetic. These are the topics discussed in standard religious encyclopedia articles on the Ark, and they are found in BBC news articles, published skeptical works (also here), and published works on myths (Kenneth Feder, 'Frauds, Myths, and Mysticism', Mayfield:1990). As with just about every other religious article on Wikipedia, this article presents typical religious beliefs concerning the Ark and contrasts them with skeptical and scientific views. I don't see what's wrong with this. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Be bold, cull away :). PiCo (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Since this article is about Noah's Ark, it's a good idea to have detailed information on the story and the ark itself taking up a good portion of the article. 96.235.179.6 (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)