Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive 12

Academic vs. Jewish

Koakh, you have accurately summarized this dispute by describing the current structure as "secular academic approach," while your own version treats the story of Noah as "Jewish cultural property". That description is right on.

In an article like this, which discusses a story that is an integral part of the three leading Western religions, as well as a cultural icon, we should certainly prefer the secular academic approach. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that follows. We should give all approaches, without preference. (At least the Jewish and academic, the others are derivative.) (I have the same issue with the header of The Exodus.) Look at the questions under NPOV.Mzk1 (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think what is needed is first the narrative, which Ravpapa is suggesting should be related from a "secular academic approach", then information on each of the involved religions' (i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Islam -- and perhaps even some of the minor Abrahamic religions, if relevant) views on the meaning of the narrative. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Hrafn (is that a Hungarian name?). That is exactly what I meant. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(No, it's Old Norse -- with similar/identical words in Old English, and modern-various-Scandinavian-languages. It is the word from which the modern English 'raven' derives from. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC) )

Let me introduce you to a concept called chronology. This is where something is described in terms of the sequence it is recorded by historians. As it happens the "secular academic approach" is recorded commencing sometime in the 19th century, and therefore finds itself right at the end of the article. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that we're dealing with myth, not history, what relevance does the chronological order in which viewpoints developed have to do with anything? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever your opinion, I am dealing with Jewish cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible. As such it will be dealt with in a factual manner appropriate to an encyclopedia. Academic viewpoints could not have developed prior to the establishment of the culture. Also, the reader ought to be familiarised with that culture before they are immersed in its critical analysis Koakhtzvigad (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I quite simply do not see what relevance all this WP:SOAPBOXing of yours has to improving the article. The chronological order in which viewpoints developed is largely IRRELEVANT. And this narrative does not belong solely to a single culture -- so I see no reason to single out a single culture for preferential treatment. I would therefore request that you put your blatant POV-pushing on hold. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Second what Hrafn said. Koak, please take the time to familiarize yourself with the basic pillars of this project and it's various policies because what you want to do appears in conflict with them. Cheers. Griswaldo (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, no need to be testy. Koakh, I commend you on taking your arguments to the talk page, rather than edit warring, which would be obstructive and probably draw sanctions. But let's take things one at a time. It is my impression that you are disturbed not by the content of the article, but by the order in which things are presented. Do you feel that the article Noah in rabbinic literature and the section on Rabbinic Jewish traditions adequately cover the subject? That is, the problem in your eyes is not one of content, but of presentation. Is that right? --Ravpapa (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not all. You should read the exchanges above and look at the edit history of the entry. Kaokh wanted to put in a version of the entry that combines the basic narrative with Jewish commentary. He is also unhappy about the version being used, because it comes from a Christian bible, and not the Torah. If there are any significant differences, I would support an attempt to rewrite it from the Torah. However, I am 100% against presenting the narrative with Jewish commentary interwoven in it. I am also 100% against structuring the entry in a way to emphasize how this narrative is the "cultural property" of any one of the groups that find it meaningful. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ravpapa: I would be considerably less "testy" if Koakhtzvigad demonstrated some small interest in the article as a whole, as opposed to being solely interested in the promotion of the Jewish viewpoint. Such naked cultural chauvinism and avowals of cultural WP:OWNERSHIP get very wearying very fast. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Koakh wants the "Jewish tradition" section combined with the "Narrative summary" section on the grounds (though he hasn't said this) that the two are parts of a single whole, being the Written and the Oral Torah. In Judaism the two are of equal authority and equal antiquity, both deriving from Moses. Koakh's biggest handicap (and I'm not trying to insult him) is a failure to fully explain himself. PiCo (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Give the boy a chance to speak for himself. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Before he does, I'd like to speak to a particular point made here. This is a complete distortion of the ownership issue, which refers to editors. Flood narratives do belong to many cultures, but the Noah narrative is a specifically Jewish narrative, because it comes from the Jewish Bible. The fact that Christians have appropriated (I am using mild language here) it does not make it theirs. Do Christians have independent traditions about Noah? (Muslims do claim this, but they were published later, so it is at least a matter of order, or perhaps a separate article.) I am not arguing anything about the article itself (of course Christian opinions can be presented); I am only addressing myself to this point.Mzk1 (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. The earliest written version we have is an Ancient Israelite narrative. That narrative has become part of several contemporary traditions. Did it become part of the tradition we know as Judaism before it became part of Christianity and Islam? Sure, but before it was part of what we now understand as "Judaism," it was part of older proto-Jewish Israelite traditions. This idea of "cultural ownership" is ridiculous and completely off base. We can be clear about the history of the story, and we can put the Jewish materials first, since they are older, but there is no one culture or religion that owns this story.Griswaldo (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That claim is itself POV. If you want to claim my attitude is also, I will not argue, but yours is not the only legitimate one. I was mainly arguing Jewish-versus-Christian in this case.Mzk1 (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You are arguing a Jewish POV, that's the problem. I'm not arguing a Christian POV, or any other POV of that kind. I'm arguing the detached POV of scholarship. We are not going to adopt the Jewish ... or Christian ... or Muslim POVs when we write this entry. Sorry, we will cover them all, but no one of them will dictate how we cover this story. Case closed. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The critical-historical view is a POV. That is the problem with your argument.Mzk1 (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, I'm curious to know what you mean by a "version" of the story of Noah's ark. Are you implying there's more than one? Because so far as I know, the story in the Hebrew bible is the only one. The old Babylonian and Assyrian stories about arks aren't about Noah, even if the author of the Noah story used them as his source (and he certainly did). I guess what I'm trying to say is, I see this article as being about a story, one specific story, the one in the Book of Genesis. If we talk about other stories - like the one in the Koran, or the Atrahasis one - it should only be to discuss how the Noah story used them, or was used by them. PiCo (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the noah in (say) the koran is not really noah, or doesn't count, or something like that?

One could frame the argument such that that there's only one Noah story and that each literary instance is a different version which might get its own discussion; I could live with that. Or one could frame it such that there are several different Noah stories and each gets its own discussion; that might be fair, although it doesn't really do justice to the many reliable sources which have connected them much more closely. But to frame it so that there's only one Noah story which is identified with one specific text so that the other texts are secondary - well, a narrative like that would appear severely POV to me. bobrayner (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

PiCo what post of mine are you responding to exactly? Where I mentioned the "earliest written version" being and Ancient Israelite narrative? I'm assuming earlier versions existed prior to the version we have in the Hebrew bible, prior to that story being written down. Heck I assume other versions existed in writing prior to the finalization of the Jewish scripture as well. Is there something odd about those assumptions? In that post I was not speaking of other flood narratives that have survived from the general region, but to the assumption of prior versions of this flood myth. Though there was another assumption there as well, because we have at least one notable slightly different "version" in the Quran (post dating the written version in the Hebrew bible), and I think that should be discussed in the entry as well. I agree with you that the story in Genesis is the primary story here, and that we should present a summation of that text as the story. Koakh, above, seemed to suggest that the stories found in various Christian bibles are also different "versions," but while I'm no expert I was not aware of any significant narrative differences, at least any that would appear in a summation of the basic plot movements of the story. Though, like I said above, using a translation from the Hebrew bible sounds just fine to me, if it makes any difference.Griswaldo (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

And not to quibble, but there are many new versions of this story, all based on the same biblical source, but new versions nonetheless. Consider all the children's versions you might find in print, etc. I don't say that because it is meaningful to the entry, but simply to point out that "versions" do exist.Griswaldo (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've read through this entire thread again and I must say that people seem to me to be talking art cross-purposes - they seem to have much more in common than they perhaps realise. Bobrayner, my defin ition of the subject of this article is that it's about a story, the one in the Hebrew bible, which we have to treat in English translation because this is English wiki. Whether it's also historical fact, as well as a story, (which some Christians and Jews today believe) is not for us to say. Personally I believe it's not, but I try to keep that out of my approach. Griswaldo, I agree that it's possible there were earlier written versions of the ancient story, but since we don't have those versions, we can't say much about them. (As I'm sure you know, scholars do say they can find two earlier stories inside the current one). As for Koakh, I think his concern is a slightly different one: I think he believes that the written Noah-flood story is only half the story, and that the Oral Torah has equal authority. The Oral Torah is pretty much what's currently in the "Jewish tradition" section, although in fact it's just a very few selections from a very large body of tradition. Christians generally aren't even aware that the Oral Torah exists, but it's very important to Jews. I also wonder whether this discussion is going anywhere - is anyone making any suggestions about how to improve the article? PiCo (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Fudai, Iwate

Can somebody tell me why an obscure village in Japan is relevant to this article? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

And no, the fact that they faced very different forms of flooding in very different circumstances and reacted in very different ways does not make it relevant. If we included every article related to flooding/tsunamis/etc in the 'see-also's, that section would be longer than than the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture section

I removed this section as:

1. It was wholly unsourced
2. It did nothing to "explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances" per {{In popular culture}}
3. Such section inevitably act as a dumping ground for trivia.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

When did it happen?

After Harold Camping predicted The Rapture, he stated that he had figured out the date of The Flood. It was about 5000 years off, and certainly before the date generally accepted by those who believe the Bible literally. I was surprised not to find the date the literalists accept here, but when I did find it, I put it in the article. I soon found out that even those who take the Bible literally don't agree on the date of creation, but the most accepted of the dates seemed to be a good idea. I figured no one would question the research of an archbishop, at least for the archbishop's own calculation.

Now I did misread one of those small numbers and didn't know how to verify what I had seen, but I think if all you want to do is figure the date of The Flood based on a literal reading of Genesis and the most accepted of the dates of creation, there must surely be a qualifying reliable source somewhere. I get that some people want to doubt anything these web sites say, but they got it from somewhere.

As for me I believe the Earth is 4 billion years old, but for those that hold the other view, the information should be here.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that Camping is hardly a WP:RS, or even a prominent viewpoint on "the date of The Flood", I don't really think he should be included in the article. And "the date of creation" belongs in Dating creation, not here. Given that the scientific consensus is that the flood did not occur, it is unlikely that any source that claims a date for it will be deemed reliable. This particularly applies to most creationist websites, that ubiquitously have a bad reputation for poor fact-checking and for misrepresentation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the large volume of attention that Camping's chronology received from other sources (albeit mostly due to a date he set for a different religious event), I think it might be worth a passing mention, appropriately framed - even if he's no Ussher. Sure, such people and their religious commentary are not reliable sources in the sense that we can use them to state "The flood happened on date X"; but they are reliable sources for their own beliefs, so it's fine to say "Harold Camping calculated that the flood happened on date X". No need for more than those few words, though, as this isn't really an article about reconstructing biblical chronologies. bobrayner (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I started to mention Camping but given that he was so many years off, his view wouldn't belong under the literalists' date anyway. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, we needn't give literalists a monopoly on interpretation of a religious text! bobrayner (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I would point out that it is only Camping's end date that received a "large volume of attention" -- as far as I can see neither the chronology he used to calculate it, nor his start/creation date (let alone his flood date) seems to have received that much notice. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

At the very least people should be able to come to this article and see a date that someone has predicted.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Not if the source in question is neither reliably factual (WP:RS), nor presents a prominent opinion (WP:UNDUE). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Incidentally, what relevance does the date at which a 17th century Irish cleric dated the flood (and only by implication the ark) have for the subtopic of 'Literalism and the search for Noah's ark' specifically, and the topic of 'Noah's Ark' generally (even if the date he calculated can be confirmed by a WP:SECONDARY source)? If some historical figure made an attempt to calculate the birthdate of King Arthur, would we likewise include it in that article? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I will concede that when I started this I expected to find that literalists agreed on the date of creation and the dates of the events in the Bible. I once saw a Bible that showed the date of everything happening on each page so I thought the debate was settled among literalists. Having looked at that source I found for some of the facts in the Ussher chronology article, it does appear there's no such thing as literal, but I did specify one of the three methods for determining dates in the Bible and did list three dates of creation from that one source. I can certainly list others where appropriate (in other words, not here) and fix the problems with the Ussher article at a later date. It's a wonder people can still say the Bible is literally true when they can't even agree on what it says.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Jewish concept of "literally true" is very different from what others may consider it to be. What some may consider to be "literally true" would actually be heretical from the Jewish viewpoint, and there is quite a wide range of lattitude in interpretation. Also, generally religious people and secularists make unwarranted assumptions about each other's beliefs.Mzk1 (talk)

Adding more (and less prominent) dates won't make the topic any more relevant. The whole topic of this thread is a leading question: "When did it happen?" -- when the academic consensus is that it did not happen. Per WP:DUE, literalist opinions on when it did happen belong (with "appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint") in articles specifically about their viewpoint -- Flood geology or similar, not here. Literalists are only relevant here because it is a fact that they continue to look for the ark. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd take out the piece about a date. This article is about the ark, there's another one about flood myths. PiCo (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth saying something about where the flood sits in the bible's own internal chronology (the anno mundi one from the Priestly layer), but I'd have to look for it, and I don't recall ever seeing the flood mentioned as a significant date in it. (The significant dates are Abraham's birth, the 3rd month of the Exodus, and the construction and rededication of the Temple, but the ark/flood doesn't seem to have been important to the people who added the chronology).PiCo (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the Young Earth Creationist viewpoint, the Flood happened between 2400-2200 BC. Harold Camping just made up a false date so that he can set a day on the rapture, to falsely gain fame. But I do think that Jesus will return between today until 2137 AD. Just my guess. I hold that the Millennium in Revelation 20 is the Sabbath Millennium. Nashhinton (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Archaeology

[ Moved from User talk:Hrafn ]

Would you care to offer a source for Noah's Ark: Archaeology - if you are not happy with Pritchard (his book is only a collection of translations of all Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament including The Flood). I would be interested in seeing your source.

Or are you going to leave that section of the Noah's Ark article without citing any sources? Lung salad (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Discussion of articles belongs on article talk, not user talk.
2. Mulling it over since I last edited the article, I have a number of major problems with this section that go well beyond its sourcing:
   1. As nothing in the section pertains to archaeological evidence for or against the existence of Noah's Ark, its title is more than a bit misleading.
   2. As it is concerned with flood myths generally, not the Genesis flood in particular, it is more than a little off-topic.
   3. As it is talking about 19th century discoveries, rather than the current state of scholarship on the subject, it is more than a little irrelevant on that front as well.
3. On sourcing:
   1. That Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament "contain [sic] the translation of the Sumerian Deluge myth involving Ziusudra, translated by Samuel Noah Kramer. Pages 104-106 contain [sic] the translation of the Akkadian Flood myth involving Atrahasis, translated by Ephraim Avigdor Speiser" does not WP:Verify the material in the section -- which mentions neither Ziusudra nor Atrahasis.
   2. Likewise neither some random bibliography nor an Amazon blurb WP:Verifys it.
   3. Nor does the fact that this source WP:Verifys Atra-Hasis make it relevant -- as (as I pointed out above) the section does not mention Atra-Hasis/Atrahasis.

For the lack-of-relevance reasons (2.2 & 2.3 above), compounded by the lack of a citation-that-actually-verifies, and the misleading title. I'm proposing the removal of this section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it as it is clearly not about archaeology nor does it mention Noah's Ark. If we want a section on something about relationships with boats in other ancient texts, we could consider that. Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the deleted subsection had nothing to do with Noah's Ark but with the discovery of similar Flood myths, the opener:

"The 19th century also saw the growth of Middle Eastern archaeology and the first translations into English of ancient Mesopotamian records."

And so on. Translations of these ancient Mesopotamian records are found in the book edited by Pritchard, that also provides information on the very first translations into English. Lung salad (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Then your elaboration of the footnote (when challlenged for a quotation verifying the text) was simply a non sequitor, compounding the fact that the text itself was likewise a non sequitor. I'm glad to see the back of the whole thing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The archaeology subsection contained a reference to Utnapishtim, this ancient text is translated on pages 90-93 in the 1969 edition of ANET Lung salad (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked, the requirement for WP:Verifiability was at least slightly higher than that 'text and source mention at least one subject in common' -- particularly as your elaboration of the footnote did not even see fit to mention the commonality. Now, as this material has been deleted as off-topic, can we drop the subject, as now-likewise-off-topic? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

And I restored it. The fact is that (a) the discovery of the Mesopotamian flood-stories in the 19th century helped undermine confidence in the reality of the biblical story, and is therefore of importance to the reception-history of the Noah's ark story; and (b) whoever wrote the Noah's ark story lifted it almost entire from the Atrahasis story, changing it only to accommodate the theology of the Priestly stratum of Genesis (he combined it with a pre-existing Palestinian story, the J-tradition). If you want I can find more citations for this, but please don't delete it, it's important to making the article complete. PiCo (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that (i) none of those claims you just made are actually in that section -- so that section is still irrelevant & (ii) the WP:Complete bollocks citations that Lung salad kept flinging at the section 'to see what would stick don't appear to verify what is there. (iii) As I pointed out, the title is misleading for the material actually contained. If you can write a new section, with a title that is not misleading, that is both relevant and verifiable, then by all means add it -- "PLEASE DON'T" restore it until you are in a position to do so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And more generally, "please don't" restore clearly-controversial-and-problematical material without first either (i) getting a WP:CONSENSUS for its restoration or (ii) at the very least making a good faith effort to solve the problems with the material that got it removed in the first place. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It isn't archaeology, that's why I removed it. The way the texts were produced is archaeology, the texts are history/literature. Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe the paragraph in question was about the discovery (through excavation), translation and initial analysis of ancient texts. That is very much so the work of "archaeology." Perhaps the paragraph describes something else (or should describe something else), in addition to archaeology, like comparative literature, but the material it covered is certainly based on the work of 19th century archaeologists. I am also unsure what Hrafn meant in his edit summary by "very-questionably sourced." James B. Pritchard edited the volume and it was published by Princeton. What is questionable about that? Sure, it is 40 years old, but nothing in that paragraph is contentious or outdated, and if it is prove it. I'm all for changing the title of the section if need be but it seems like very pertinent information, per PiCo's comment here.Griswaldo (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(i) Actually it makes no mention of the discovery of first texts it discusses (just their initial translation into English -- which means that they may have been discovered, and translated into other languages long before), and makes no mention of the "excavation" of later discoveries. (ii) If you are "unsure" then read my original post! It is "very-questionably sourced" because it is very questionable whether the cited source actually verifies the material. (a) The source was added long after the material was written. (b) It was added as part of a loose 'throw sources at the passage and see what sticks' process (as opposed to rewriting the existing material to match the new source). (c) Lung salad dodged like crazy when I tried to pin him down on what the source actually said that was relevant to the material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

@Hrafn's initial post. I am a bit perplexed by this response. (1.1) Why should the section be about "archaeological evidence for or against the existence of Noah's Ark?" It is about the influence of 19th century archaeology on how the Ark narrative is viewed. Despite the title, the entry is not really about a phantom vessel, but about a flood myth of which the vessel is a part. (1.2) It is not off-topic to discuss how our view of the Noah story changed because of the discovery of other Near Eastern flood myths. (1.3) Since the subsection was in a larger section about the 19th century it is clearly relevant to discuss 19th century archaeology and not the current state of scholarship. If there are more current discoveries or theories in the realm of biblical or Near Eastern archeology that are also relevant then lets discuss them in the entry, but not in a section about the 19th century. I'm not sure about your source criticisms. Does the source not actually verify the information in the paragraph? If so please explain how, because I'm not getting it from the above. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

@Griswaldo: (i) "Why should the section be about 'archaeological evidence for or against the existence of Noah's Ark?'" Because that would ACTUALLY make the material RELEVANT to the juxtaposition of the section and article titles -- i.e. to the "Archeology" of "Noah's Ark". Instead we have information on the translation (and only peripherally discovery) of texts about other flood myths (so only peripherally related to the Genesis flood, and even more peripherally related to the boat that features in the latter). (ia) The material under discussion makes no mention of "the influence of 19th century archaeology on how the Ark narrative is viewed" -- so this does not add to its relevance. (ii) If you want the article to be about the Genesis flood generally, then propose, and get a consensus for, a move. (I would note that such an enlargement would immediately drag in issues such as Catastrophism, Scriptural geologists, Flood geology and the like.) I cannot be faulted for arguing and editing this article on the basis of its current title. (iii) I will concede your third point. On closer examination, the material in question is a subsection of "a larger section about the 19th century", which is itself part of a larger section on 'The Ark and science' -- to which topic it is decidedly peripheral to. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm restoring this material yet again. Hrafn, this is a long-standing subsection in the article, and if you want to delete it, you have to make a case.

The larger section to which it belongs is NOT about evidence for and against the ark's existence, it's about the way BELIEF in the ark's existence slowly eroded over the centuries from the Renaissance onwards. The discovery of the Babylonian version in the 19th century had a major impact at the time: some people were strengthened in their belief that the bible was true, but for scholars it became clear that the reverse was the case, and that the bible story was based on the Babylonian one.

Sources: You say the source is weak, but it doesn't look that way to me. Can you explain?

Finally, since you seem so narrowly focused on whether Noah's ark is a true story, I've added a section on modern thinking on the sources of the ark story, linking back to the Babylonian tablets. I hope you've heard of Van Seters and Campbell and O'Brien. PiCo (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

@Pico-the-self-appointed-WP:OWNER-of-this-article: (i) case made. (ii )material removed by a concurring editor. (iii) material unilaterally restored, without seeking a new consensus, and a couple of minutes before actually bring your case to talk, with little attempt to address the previous discussion and no attempt to rectify the problems. (iv) As the section contains nothing whatsoever about this purported "major impact" all your claims about it are irrelevant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Me, "self-appointed owner"? You edit it more than I do. PiCo (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You, "self-appointed owner" -- which is a matter of how you edit (i.e. unilaterally, against a consensus, without first seeking a new consensus) rather than how often. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, I do not need to propose a move because the entry is already about the narrative(s) surrounding the ark. You may not be familiar with the conventions regarding mythology related entries. When these narratives don't have official names, they often take titles from important aspects of those narratives -- usually the central characters. See for instance Rangi and Papa, Pangu, etc. Despite this, however, the entries are about the entire stories, not just the named aspects. So you are simply wrong there, but I cannot fault you if you don't regularly edit mythology entries, because I agree it may seem confusing. Regarding the "Ark and Science" section, I agree that the archaeology material is not best suited for it if it is truly meant to encompass the subject you propose it is. But the same goes for the "Biblical Scholarship" material then, and the the rest of the section needs to be cut down to size. This is, once again, an entry about an ancient story. Perhaps we can spin out a separate entry on literalism vs. scientific incredulity (in relation to the ark), which is a very minor issue in the history of this narrative. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Except that the article's lead, which is supposed to "define the topic", clearly states that the article is primarily about the vessel rather than about the narrative more generally, and does not mention the narrative until the second and third paragraphs (of course because the vessel originates in the narrative, you cannot discuss the former without discussing the latter). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Then we need to change the lead, because the entry is about the story, and so are other mythology entries. I will change it now.Griswaldo (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right -- but then I really would suggest moving it to Genesis flood, which is a very well known, and less confusing, title for the narrative as a whole (particularly as much of the article discusses the flood rather than the vessel) -- which currently simply redirects to Flood myth (when in fact it is about the narrative discussed here). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think part of the problem with that is that the narrative also appears in the Quran - in other words not only in Genesis. Though I do agree with you that it would be nice to have a title that reflects the story better.Griswaldo (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding that last point I made -- I agree with PiCo above, in terms of the historical narrative related to how people viewed the ark. My point is that any current debate about the literal veracity of the story are fringe. Perhaps we need to change the name of the parent section to better reflect what it is about. It also, still needs to be cut down in size IMO.Griswaldo (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If it were solely about [just] "an ancient story", it would merely be a footnote in Flood myths. It is the fact that this "ancient story" had continued to be accepted as canonical and historical truth by the Western world for many centuries (and is still accepted as such by many) that makes it sufficiently notable to get its own article. Therefore its acceptance, and eventual rejection, is part of that notability and are 'prominent viewpoints' per WP:WEIGHT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It is solely about an ancient story. What makes the story "ancient" is its origin. Since its creation the story has been and remains germane to millions of people across the globe, but that doesn't change the fact that it is "ancient." In Western civilization there has been no "rejection" of the story in the manner you propose, which is based on a dichotomy between biblical literalism and scientific materialism. Views regarding all of the Bible stories have changed over time (and to varying degrees in different social contexts). The story of Noah is still "canonical," but like others of its kind most of those who find it meaningful do not consider it "historical truth." They do not, in other words, fall on one side or another of this literalist vs. materialist dichotomy.Griswaldo (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There has most certainly been "rejection" by "Western civilization" of the story as "historical truth" (which was "the manner [I] propose[d]") in the late 18th/early 19th century (before which time it was accepted as historical as well as canonical). And whether or not it was "historical truth", and whether or not it needed to be such to be "meaningful", has been the subject of an ongoing debate by those accepting the Biblical canon in the two centuries since. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

To put it another way, this "ancient story" is highly notable because (i) it is part of the canon of two major, modern religions & (ii) its historicity has been an issue of long-standing and ongoing major controversy (in a way that, for example, Joseph (son of Jacob), has not). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

A wast majority of those who accept the Biblical canon simply do not have such debates. You're projecting several specialized discourses onto "Western civilization" more broadly, as if they are directly meaningful to most of those who engaged this story over the centuries, or most of those who engage it now. These debates have certainly effected the way that a majority of Westerns view the stories, but to describe that change as a "rejection" of historical truth is simply not correct. Historical transitions in audience reception of stories like these are not marked by sea-changes, which is what rejection implies. Western civilization has transitioned from a more historical reading of these stories to a less historical reading. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

A 'transition' "from a [≈100%] historical reading of these stories to a [≈0% by many] historical reading" would generally be considered ≈ "a rejection" of the story as historical. Regardless of whether you WP:SPADE or not, it can be perceived that this 'transition' was indeed a 'sea-change' and one that has had ongoing significant impact, feeding into (and being fed from) both the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy in Protestantism (and similar controversies between traditionalism and modernism in Catholicism) as well as intransigent modern differences of viewpoint between conservative/Fundamentalist/Tradionalist and liberal/Modernist branches of Christianity. (The foregoing is of course a radical oversimplification -- but a well-rounded explication would be grossly WP:TLDNR.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Way forward

Per discussion to date can we agree:

1. That the article is, and should be, primarily on the narrative, not the vessel, and that the lead needs to be altered to reflect this (and that perhaps an article move to Genesis flood needs to be contemplated).
2. That a better harmonisation between the title of 'The Ark and science' and its contents needs to be contemplated (and that per #1 the 'Ark' in the title probably really needs to go).
3. That further work is needed on the 'Translation of other flood myths' (formerly 'Archaeology') section, to emphasise its impact on acceptance of the narrative as historical, is needed.
4. That whether the existing material in that section is actually verified by its (after-the-fact) cited source remains an open question.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Also Ark lists this article as religious rather than as being about a ship. Arlen22 (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Per my comment above, a title change is made more difficult by the fact that the story also appears in the Quran. I too would like to see a title change, but something like "Genesis flood" wont cut it unfortunately.Griswaldo (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I would, regretfully, have to agree. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I should add that I agree with your points.Griswaldo (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Our Great flood article isn't appropriate as it stands. I don't have a problem with an article on the Ark separate from one about Noah's flood. Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Noah's flood (which also redirects to flood myths) gets 900k Google hits, so is a reasonably well-known term -- would it qualify as a well-known and more-clearly-about-the-narrative-not-the-vessel, but religiously-neutral, title? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I would support "Noah's flood", with a redirect of "Noah's ark" here, though I think "Noah's ark" is the most common name or association.Griswaldo (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I also support "Noah's flood". Arlen22 (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Returning to the FA copy

I did that just to put something there that was at one time called good. Go ahead and revert if you want. I just wanted a break! Arlen22 (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Woah. You can't just undo that much work from other editors without at least discussing it first. Each of those changes you undid gained consensus at one time, and need to be left in, unless there's currently consensus to remove them all. Having skimmed the two revisions, I seriously doubt there is.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

At a very cursory glance the old FA version seems superior. I encourage people to look more carefully at the two and consider how the present version can be improved based on the FA version. I do agree, however, that simply reverting back is not a good idea at this point. When was that version last stable?Griswaldo (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. And I realize now that something is actually happening. Cheers, Arlen22 (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Both versions are messes -- is there a third option? But seriously, I can see little evidence that the old version is superior -- for one thing it makes way too much use of WP:PRIMARY sources (as well as having at least a sprinkling of unreliable sources & broken citation-links). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC) If this comment is a "response" to anything (as opposed to a general comment on the topic -- which is what it was intended to be) -- it is to the original comment. PLEASE DO NOT MAKE MY COMMENTS REPLIES TO COMMENTS I DID NOT EXPLICITLY MAKE THEM A REPLY TO -- THAT IS BEING VERY VERY RUDE! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I agree that there are points of superiority in the prior version. For instance, some of the prose and summaries are cleaner. However, removing all mention of Islam in the lead, for instance, is grossly unwarranted just to simplify the writing style. I think comparing the two in detail could provide ideas for improvement of our current version, but reverting back entirely is an idea I'm opposed to, to state it mildly.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

But how much of this 'superior prose' was actually supported by the sources (let alone reliable, verifiable sources), without considerable WP:Synthesis? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously that's something which would have to be considered when comparing versions. The sourcing does look poor in the FA, which is probably why we moved so far away from it. That doesn't mean there isn't anything good about it, though. It does look nicer in a couple places, and seems to have some distinct content.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

For accessibility, here's the FA being discussed, and here's the current version. Diff.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

7 or 7x2?

The Biblical narrative section speaks of seven pairs of the birds and the clean animals, but the Rabbinic Judaism section speaks of "admitting seven each" (clean). Is this a difference between the narratives, or should it be pairs in both? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It should be pairs in both.Mzk1 (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So edited. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Myth-placed?

Could somebody point to any evidence of the existence of this vessel outside of Abrahamic mythology, or any (not-purely-sectarian) scholarly consensus that it had a non-mythic existence. If not, then it would seem perfectly reasonable to place it in Category:Mythological ships and there would appear to be not to include it other than censorship due to kowtowing to Christian Exceptionalism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have already pointed out numerous scholarly sources reflecting a widespread POV that Noah's Ark does NOT fit the genre of mythology, and also numerous scholarly sources pointing out that "mythology" is a disputed and pejorative term that is often considered duplicitous. You seem to be saying that none of these scholars or theologians can possibly "count" for neutrality purposes. This is yet another NPOV usurpation, so it looks like we're going to have to go through this whole thing again to explain it to you, hopefully not for months again. In addition, per MOS, there is no need to place a supercat on an article when there is a topic cat for that. This is being done purely for inflammatory and POV pushing purposes. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A quick browse through your comments on this talk page in the last couple of years provides no substantiation of your claim, which I will note falls well short of asserting that the view that the Ark was not 'mythological' (or some reasonably close synonym) is the majority view in academia (or even that it is held by anybody outside the field of Biblically-literalist Christian theology -- given that its acceptance within that subfield can be attributed to begging the question). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will begin once again reproducing here the quotes from all the prominent theologians and scholars who have weighed in on this question, and let you explain again, one by one, why their opinions on this "do not count", and why the opposing POV "enjoys unanimous consensus" and is therefore to be endorsed, and equated with "neutrality", as if there was never any controversy at all about how to define 'mythology'. And it is still against MOS to use supercats this way, which suggests this is done just to be controversial, pejorative and inflammatory. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Theolgians are experts on Abrahamic mythology, so it is hard to see how their work can possibly confirm the Ark's existence outside that mythology. Would any of your (other) "scholars" by any chance be either historians, anthropologists or non-Biblical literalists? I'm afraid that there're whole libraries full of well-established historical and scientific scholarship that contradicts your, and many others', deeply held religious beliefs. It is not Wikipedia's place to attempt to soften those contradictions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's bullshit. The POV that this is mythology does not enjoy anything at all like a monopoly among scholars or theologians, and as a responsible project we should be noting the controversy -- not endorsing one POV and hypocritically pretending there simply is no controversy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No, what is "bullshit" is narrowly defining "mythology" so as to exclude one's own mythology by definition. Less colloquially, it would appear to be a form of special pleading. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC

That is a circular argument, and poor logic. Your argument assumes this IS mythology without clarifying which of the 12 disputed definitions that is, and to what degree such a term implies fictitious or falsehood. You cannot "prove" a subjective characterization using semantics like that. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No. My argument is that there does not appear to be any argument against classifying the Ark as "mythological" that does not involve an unmerited privileging of certain narratives of a religious and/or supernatural nature over other narratives of a religious and/or supernatural nature. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if correct, how would that argument give wikipedia the right to endorse one point of view in a controversy as if that pov were synonuymous with "neutrality"? We are supposed to note and explain controversy, not brush it under the carpet. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't. It treats the wooden boat from within one 'narrative of a religious and/or supernatural nature' in the same way as it treats a wooden horse from another 'narrative of a religious and/or supernatural nature'. (belatedly signed) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to get mired in an edit war, but I agree with Hrafn on this point; it's a mythological ship. There may be some perspectives which treat it as something other than a mythological ship (typically a perspective which regards the mythical texts as factual, and therefore regards the ship as a real thing) but they are not supported by the weight of scholarship, nor by any physical evidence outside the mythical texts.

Another who agrees with Hrafn. It seems we still cling to archaic definitions of history and religion, at the cost of understanding, and why? Because we are trying to be sensitive to the adherents of one custom or religion or another. This is a big problem, especially in the United States (and other countries, of course) where a dominant religion (dominant because of population, only, and think about the ways it became dominant) would like to redefine science so that it follows religion, instead of defining knowledge according to a politically undirected science curriculum. Now, I would ask if Judaic myth should not be categorized as myth, then what rationale is it that prevents us from categorizing the traditionally regarded myths, such as Greek and Roman myth as religion? Why should Jason's Argonaut odyssey be a myth, rather than one part of a greater Greek religion? After all, if Noah's Ark apologists claim there was a global flood, etc. (an ostentatious claim), couldn't the Greek Myth apologist equally claim the Clashing Rocks of the Argo voyage really are the Bosphorus, and that Colchis really is an ancient kingdom in modern day Georgia? The conclusion that emerges from the dialogue between Til Eulenspiegel and Hrafn is that this exclusive distinction between religion and myth is arbitrary and capricious, and wholly rests on an aggressive insistence of the story's believers, who can only sustain this debate through a repetition several logical fallacies: Appeal to emotion, appeal to authority, and appeal to probability, to name just three.giggle 22:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory.george.lewis (talk • contribs)

We can reflect nuances of different beliefs in article prose, but alas categories are a bit more black-and-white - calls for a monopoly are a silly distraction from the need to consider the strength of sources. Note that Elvis is in Category:1977 deaths even though some argue Elvis is still alive (or at least he didn't die in 1977); homeopathy is in Category:Pseudoscience even though millions think it's real medicine. bobrayner (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

How about the fact that supercats should not be placed on topic articles, unless there is no controversy and clear consensus? This was discussed at some point and after MUCH discussion was the compromise. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussed where? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Right here on this page, in the archives. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"Right here on this page" ≠ "in the archives". There are currently 16 archive pages for this talkpage (archive 5 having 5 subpages), and most of them seem to mention 'mythology' at some stage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Supposing, for a minute, that the result of any previous discussion should be treated as though it were written in stone or that a handful of editors could agree to ignore the best sources; could you link to the compromise agreement that you have in mind? bobrayner (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Bob, I'm hoping that, at the very least, they'll fill in some of the details of what Til is arguing about (his arguments to date have been more than a little vague and conclusionary). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• I must admit I would be interested in how, without a priori privileging of Christian/Jewish/Muslim beliefs over those of Ásatrú, Dodekatheism and Chiloé Islanders, one differentiates between the Ark and the Argo, Caleuche, Hringhorni, Naglfar, Sessrúmnir or Skíðblaðnir? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The NPOV policy should hopefully explain that it is not neutral to antagonize a significant and widepread point of view. I have never seen any such dispute in literature with regard to any of thoise other topics. There is a vast dispute among theologians with regard to this topic, that you are turning a blind eye to. Thus a flawed analogy for purposes of establishing a logical fallacy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED explains why we do not allow who it will "antagonize" to influence us. Basically your argument comes down to 'Us Biblical Literalists powerful & stroppy -- don't mess with our sacred cows or there'll be trouble' -- hardly an intellectual argument. And it is not an "analogy", flawed or otherwise -- it is a direct comparison of a ship from one set of religion's mythologies to those from others which are uncontroversially categorised as such. It's no more an "analogy" than somebody asking "if you're allowed to beat your wife, then why aren't I allowed to beat mine?" is. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems you have responded to your own flawed analogy with yet another flawed and illogical analogy, and this time your analogy doesn;t even make the least bit of sense, Could you please explain what your emotion-laden analogy of wife-beating has the least bit to do with actual logic in this case? I am beginning to think you are incapable of applying actual logic in your argumentation, or have never studied the difference between a logical argument and an emotional fallacy. The reasons for violating MOS here with a supercat are all entirely emotional, but your bitter emotion toward the topic does not, and cannot, trump the Manual of Style. Supercats should not be used on a topic article without clear, unopposed reason, and should never be used in cases where to do so is disputed. You are so smarmily convnced that your POV is so perfectly "right" about this issue, and that all the prominent theologians who publicly disagree are wrong about it, that this trumps all policy and therefore those you disagree with must be antagonized to the maximum extent possible to violation of MOS, not actually acknowledged nor allowed to speak for themselves with explanatory citations in the article conceding that other POVs on the genre of the literature actually do exist among theologians. Your view of "neutrality" is positively Hegelian, as it seems to make antagonism and polemicism as an essential part of "neutrality", when to everyone else this is the very antithesis of neutral, not to mention the antithesis of logic. You don't even want to leave editors with any recourse or due process to challenge this POV coup. But I promise you, as due process is the foundation of ensuring justice, it will be followed as far as necessary. Your argument so far is merely "We are so correct in ourselves that we have a perfect right to antagonize whomever we please, and hypocritically label that "neutrality". This project is not your vehicle for declaring whose beliefs are to be accepted as canonical and whose are heretical. Neutrality policy is quite clear that where there is a controversy, we cover all sides of it and not pretend one entire side with a whole library of reliable backup cites simply doesn't exist only because "you don't like that POV". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

(i) Saying "flawed analogy" over and over doesn't make my statement either flawed or an analogy -- it simply makes you guilty of argumentum ad nauseum. COMPARING "Argo, Caleuche, Hringhorni, Naglfar, Sessrúmnir or Skíðblaðnir" from narratives subscribed to by "Ásatrú, Dodekatheism [or] Chiloé Islanders", which are categorised as "mythical ships" by Wikipedia to the Ark, from the narratives subscribed to by Christians, Muslims, and Jews IS NOT AN ANALOGY IT IS A DIRECT COMPARISON. My explicitly hypothetical "wife beating" example was an analogous direct comparison. If you don't like the subject matter, then take "if you're allowed to walk on the grass, then why aren't I?" instead. (ii) A Supercat is a type of fast ferry. As far as I can see you have completely failed to offer any demonstration that they exist as a defined type of WP:Categorization, let alone what that definition might be or that there are any specific restrictions. (iii) What I am "convinced" of is that you have done nothing but huff and puff, and have cited neither specific policy nor specific scholarship to support your contention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

My contention is one that I have amply demonstrated with sources over and over, but will happily do so again; it is that "mythology" is a POINT OF VIEW regarding the genre of this story and one that IS NOT A UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS among theologians or scholars because THERE ARE ALSO OTHER POINTS OF VIEW. Your argument is a circular one, that "Only true scholars agree that it is mythology, or else they cannot be a true scholar". Your definition of "scholar" thus becomes a litmus test depending on whether or not they are in accord with your P.O.V. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Just in case there's any confusion about what the NPOV policy says, it can be read here. It requires us to be neutral and consider the strength of sources. Disagreement is not antagonism, neutrality is not the same as accepting every claim at face value, and NPOV is not a special shield for believers who feel offended by the existence of nonbelievers (and their evidence) bobrayner (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course this is a mythological vessel. What believers consider the ark is immaterial, because the relevant context is the study of myth, and not theology. Placing the category on the page only says that within that context this ship is considered a mythological vessel. The category is relevant and informative. Please include the category in the entry.Griswaldo (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The context is myth for some, but 'history' for many others. ^rossnixon 02:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Please cite sources demonstrating that the view that this vessel was 'historical' has any prominence among historians. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You are still arguing that the prominent opinions of prominent theologians speaking for a widespread and significant POV have no bearing on a theological article, because your "mythology" pov is evidently so sacrosanct that it overrides all relible sources to the contrary? Your only arguments for violating MOS with application of a disputed, inflammatory and contentious supercat are admittedly antagonistic and bear no resemblance to actual logic. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Complete nonsense:

1. My response to rossnixon made no mention of theologians (prominent or otherwise). I asked for a historical reliable source for an explicitly historical claim.
2. In any case, you have failed to demonstrate (as opposed to merely assert) that theologians have any relevant expertise. The question of whether the Ark exists outside of narratives (which anybody applying WP:SPADE would call a "myth") is a matter for historians and/or archaeologists, not theologians. Now if we wanted to know whether some interpretation of these narratives were orthodox, heretical, etc, etc, we'd certainly call on a theologian.
3. Again in any case, you have presented NO "prominent opinions of prominent theologians" supporting your case.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

And in response to this claim by Til Eulenspiegel that "You need a compelling reason and NO OPPOSITION to violate MOS; your arguments are antagonistic and illogical and a violation of MOS. This is a DISPUTE, the opposite of "consensus", the dispute is WELL DOCUMENTED in literature as well." I would ask:

1. Where the hades does WP:MOS (or WP:MOSCAT) state that we cannot categorise the Ark as "mythical"?
2. Where does it state that "you need a compelling reason and NO OPPOSITION to violate MOS", as opposed to a simple WP:CONSENSUS?

Wild claims with no basis in specific policy quite simply have no impact other than to degrade the claimant's credibility. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm baffled by the frantic scattering of different policy acronyms which do not actually support the statement they're used in. The MOS doesn't preclude giving the ark an accurate category; WP:CONSENSUS doesn't mean you can plough on regardless when most editors disagree with you; WP:NPOV doesn't support the bizarre stances taken above. Whatever next? Maybe WP:NPA or WP:AGF or WP:NHOCKEY will be cited as a reason to remove the category...

Lots of Text

So is there a chance we can use a category name that is like 'Myth', but without the negative connotations of that word? -- Avanu (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It's unlikely that we could find a word which satisfies both parties, since it's not just the word - it's about the very nature of the ark. One side of the debate is deeply opposed to how the other side would characterise the ark. I would suggest words like "fictional" or "fantasy" or "pretend" or "discredited", but none of those are likely to be acceptable to anyone who takes the source text seriously. bobrayner (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

(i) None of the synonyms of "mythical": fabled, fabulous, legendary; famed, romanticized, storied; chimerical/chimeric, fabricated, fantastic/fantastical, fictional, fictitious; fanciful, imaginary, imagined, invented, made-up, make-believe, pretend, unreal; allegorical, mythological/mythologic; semilegendary; etc -- would appear likely to be any more acceptable. (ii) It is absurd to change the WP:TITLE of a category from one that readers would be likely to expect or search for, to a less easily found one, to satisfy the exceptionalism of one group. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

How about 'legendary'? It isn't much different from 'myth', but doesn't necessarily connote falsity to the average layman. ^rossnixon 02:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with "legendary" is it is very frequently used these days as a synonym for "terrific", e.g. for people who are standing right next to the person making that description. It has also, even in its formal sense, a strong connotation of 'fame' that does not well fit it as an adjective for some of the more obscure ships of myth (you do not see the more minor characters of narratives described as "legendary"). However, if you can get a WP:CONSENSUS for renaming the category, I won't be obdurate in my opposition. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Myths typically pass into legend (not the other way around). Myth is factual given the literature. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd accept 'mythical' as long as this article is also added to whatever category covers 'historical events of high importance'. ^rossnixon 02:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And "I'd accept" a million dollars if anybody would be foolish enough to offer it. Please cite a WP:RS (with the explicit qualifier that "reliable" means having relevant expertise to the question -- e.g. a historian or anthropologist) for the claim that this topic involves "historical events". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Like this? [1]although the suggestion there is a 'mytho-historical' genre due to parallels in Mesopotamian literature. ^rossnixon 03:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No. An organisation that states "Demonstrating the historical reliability of the Bible" as part of their 'Mission Statement'[2] would not be a WP:RS for this claim. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You asked for RS evidence that the claim exists. When provided one, you immediately turn this into a circular argument on your own pseudo-authority by demanding a source that agrees with your POV. There are POVs here, because this is a disputed subject, not one where one side enjoys a monopoly as you pretend. The Reliable sources noticeboard has lots of experts who are used to explaining on a regular basis how sources can be indeed be reliable for purposes of establishing that a POV is significant, widespread or noteworthy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The webpage of an organisation that states as a presupposition "the historical reliability of the Bible", is not "RS evidence" that this claim has any validity. This IS NOT "a circular argument" -- it is simply a rejection of begging the question -- which on the "authority" of a whole host of philosophers is a logical fallacy. Please Read WP:RS#Scholarship. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Your argument is a circular one. You are demanding sources that speak for the POV existing that this is considered historical - but with one caveat: if they are sources that speak for the POV existing, then they are pre-disqualified. Good luck and happy hunting, even though you are claiming your own "authority" of your own POV to raise the bar impossibly high, and way higher than Reliable Sources Noticeboard will assuredly explain it really is. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Complete bollocks. (i) Their presupposition: "the historical reliability of the Bible". (ii) Therefore their conclusion of historicity of a vessel from the Bible is begging the question. (iii) This logical fallacy renders the source unreliable. A direct, linear argument -- NO FRACKING CIRCULARITY IN SIGHT! Did you really think that I would accept a self-published source that simply ASSUMED historicity? Get a clue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Luckily for us, it doesn't really matter too much whether or not YOU would accept, since we don't operate by editor fiat here. There is a really nifty place you ought to check out sometime, called "Reliable Sources Noticeboard." Take the sources there. Ask them if those sources can, per policy, be considered reliable for the purpose of establishing that a theological POV exists regarding a theological topic. Go ahead, ask there, I dare you. You see, when multiple POVs exist, what we here at wikipedia try to do per cornerstone policy is describe all the POVs in full and explain exactly who-all thinks what and why, without partiality, NOT bury our heads in the sand, and let a single dictatorial editor proclaim "we're going to pretend an entire school of thought simply doesn't exist and cannot be mentioned at all, because only those sources from the opposing POV count as reliable, or are to be endorsed by my authority." Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Luckily for all of us theologians are not reliable for "historical" claims simply by being theologians. So what is your point here? If you have a category that is relevant to theological claims about Noah's ark then please add it. No one is stopping you. But you can't use theologians to support historical claims. This conversation is going nowhere, and appears much more like a pissing match than anything else. I'm this close to hatting it.Griswaldo (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't just about categories. This is about whether or not we are going to describe all multiple POVS, with impartiality, in the body of the article, on the controversy, or whether we are going to lay down an official theological orthodox wikipedia doctrine of what POV readers are "supposed to believe", or which of the many competing views of 3rd mill. BC history they are "approved" to read about the widespread existence of. I would like the editor who is claiming that authority for himself to make a full account of how he got to be so powerful as to banish all POVs he doesn't like and say his own is not only "neutral", but the only view on this that may be described to readers. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This thread is about a category. To avoid confusion you should start a new thread about the body of the text.Griswaldo (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No category which suggests that this is historical would be appropriate. The story of Noah and the Ark isn't a legend either. I understand the struggle over myth but it is academically correct. Dougweller (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Where is this conversation going? The mythical vessel category is absolutely relevant because within the study of myth, heck within the study or religion broadly speaking, this is a mythological vessel. There is no religious studies scholar that I know of, or religious historian more specifically, who argues that these early sections of the Hebrew Bible are "historical." That is a non-starter. If there is a category that is relevant to the perspective of adherents to Judaism or Christianity regarding what they believe about this vessel then by all means add it. But when we add categories about history they pertain to what is mainstream within the discipline of history. Can we stop this now?Griswaldo (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see not much has changed since I helped write the original that became an FA. :( Chalk one up for the Fundies, though, the tendentious editing and constant bickering got it "de-FA'd". Sigh. And, BTW, it 'is' a mythical ship. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

And in the end, it is a mythological ship. Til has not offered any reliable sources from mainstream academia that would categorize this ship as anything but mythological. It doesn't matter how many millions of people want to believe this ship existed for real and think it's not a myth, and it doesn't matter if there's a group of theologians who assert it's not mythology. Wikipedia is about what reliable sources from the relevant field say, not what a few "highly credited theologians" or fundamentalist Christians/Jews/Muslims think. If the Trojan Horse is mythological, so is Noah's Ark. Til, please keep your special pleading for the myths YOU personally like off of an encyclopedia. SuperAtheist (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Modern Views

Some of the sub-headings under "Modern Views" are POV from an Evangelical Christian perspective. Specifically, "Chronology", "Ark and Genesis 1", "Numerology and the Tabernacle", and "Structure" all seem to be promoting the theories of Gordon J Wenham. I suggest that the article be edited to reflect the breadth of theological interpretation. Matthewwb (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Engineering section

There was an engineering section explicating the practical difficulties (well, impossibility really) of building the Ark as described. The section cited a skeptic's blog and a student project. Two problems here. First of all, it seems to be attacking a straw man: Does anyone seriously claim that the ancients could build a wooden boat 300 cubits (150m) long carrying a load of 4-8000+ tons? (And of course if they claim it is possible because God willed it, we are outside the domain of engineering theory.) Secondly, neither a blog post nor a student project is a WP:Reliable Source. I removed the section. --Macrakis (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I added a source to the section which should pass WP:RS. I'm not convinced the second source fails to meet RS simply because it is a doctoral assignment, however, it is certainly a primary source and so could be improved. Other sources are out there as well if we need to improve it further. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The new source seems WP:RS, thanks. If we really want this section (see next), we could base it on this rather than the previous article. We also don't need to make it about personalities ("research by Brian Dunning"... "he discovered"... "doctoral student Jose Solis..." -- all that stuff belongs in footnotes). We could just say "It is implausible that an ancient farmer with no knowledge of naval architecture could build a seaworthy wooden ship 300 cubits (150m) long; the longest wooden vessel built in modern times only reached 329 feet (100m). It is also implausible that sufficient quantities of wood could be assembled."

But do we really need this section? Is there really a role for engineering calculations in discussing Noah's Ark? Do we also need to perform aerodynamic calculations on Elijah's chariot? -- and what sort of fuel did it use? Do we need to do acoustic/phonological modelling of donkeys' throats (cf. Balaam's talking donkey)? Trying to either explain or debunk these things naturalistically is pointless since they are part of a narrative which accepts supernatural explanation. --Macrakis (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Practical difficulties involved in building the Ark are a staple of skeptical objections to the Ark narrative, and have been discussed frequently in relevant WP:RS, particularly with regard to comparative very large ancient ships such as Hapshetsut's obelisk barge, the Tessarakonteres, and Caligula's Nemi ships and obelisk carrier. I see no reason to suppress this particular skeptical objection. Talk of Elijah's chariot and Balaam's donkey is irrelevant, since these do not receive the same treatment in WP:RS.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, if we think naturalistic explanations are necessary, where did all that water come from, and where did it go? --Macrakis (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Evidence-based investigation into bible stories is pointless and unnecessary in the sense that if a researcher applied for funding to study the possibility of a talking donkey the funding committee would probably tell them that it's pointless and unnececessary.

However, since the research has been published, it's useful to add depth to this encyclopædia article. Many readers may come here with the preconceived notion that noah's ark was just a story - an opinion that I share - but the article must try to take a step back and describe the subject neutrally, and an attempt at naturalistic explanation is much better than "Is true / is not". bobrayner (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The neutral position in wikipedia is the position of mainstream science on all things. Due unweight should not be given to fringe ideas. see WP:FRINGE. (edit: as per Grabergs) IRWolfie- (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Skeptical objections to the practicalities of building the ark are not fringe ideas.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

IRWolfie-, you meant UNdue weight, right?Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure; I probably misinterpreted your position. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Size of the ark VS the tabernacle

"The ark is said to be 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high, and has three decks; it is therefore three times the height of the Tabernacle and three times the area of the Tabernacle forecourt, as described in the Book of Exodus."

Who wrote this ? Three times the height ok, but not three times the area. Therefore the whole sentence is irrelevant.

Structure	L	W	H	Perim
Courtyard	30	10	10	300c² (75m²)
Tent	120	60	10	7200c² (1800m²)
Noah's ark	300	50	30	15000c² (3750m²)

--Squallgreg (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If nobody disagrees I will delete the original sentence soon. --Squallgreg (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Contradictions

In the section "Biblical Scholarship" it is implied that there are contradicting accounts within the texts of the Bible, such as "the rains are described as lasting forty days, but the waters are also said to have risen for 150 days", this is simply a lack of understanding of the difference between the terms "rains" and "waters". I will explain by a simple question then; if it rained for forty days and nights, on the day it stopped raining, the 41st day, would there be no waters left on the surface of the ground, or would it take some time for the waters to recede after the rain had stopped? Some things to consider are the fact that it takes time for rain waters to run down a slope, particularly forested terrain, rain can continue to flow through a forest for many days after the rain stops, also melting of snow continues for some time after rains stop, as glaciers and other deposits of ice do not melt instantly during rains. Another factor could be compression of the earth, lowering the level of ground and creating an upwelling from artesian springs and geysers, an influx of sea-waters etc... there could very well be two different sources of waters contributing to rising flood waters, and it is not necessarily a contradiction to say rain fell, and fountains flooded, but a conjoining of two elements in a single event. A similar thing is found with the other statements; "it is said that there was a single pair of each animal aboard, but also that there were seven pairs of the clean animals"; the author implies there are two accountings of the number of animals in this group, but it is clear that there are in fact two distinct groups of animals and each are to be numbered differently, a group of clean animals, and a group of unclean animals, a pair of one, 7 of the other, it is not a contradiction, saying take 2 of these and also... take 7 of the same. The same thing is found in the remaining statement about the source of the flood waters, heavens refer not only a spiritual realm or kingdom, but also a physical atmosphere upon the earth, so opening the flood gates of the heavens refers to... rain! Also the source of the rain, the fountains of the deep probably refers to the hydraulic cycle, which was known by the author of the Bible and described in common language in Isaiah 55:10 . . ."For just as the pouring rain descends, and the snow, from the heavens and does not return to that place, unless it actually saturates the earth". Here it shows not only that the atmosphere is referred to as "the heavens", but also that it was known that the water falls to the ground and also returns to the skies in a continuous cycle, not, for example, flowing off the edge of a flat earth? see also (Isaiah 40:22) . . .There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth. . . (Job 26:7) . . .Hanging the earth upon nothing. . . (Ecclesiastes 1:7) . . .All the winter torrents are going forth to the sea, yet the sea itself is not full. To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth. . . There is no trace of contradiction found by this author that cannot be discredited by a complete examination of the source materials, in my opinion the entire paragraph should be removed as it is prejudicial, implying the Bible texts contains cintradictions yet not supporting this theory with the evidence it has cited. It is little more than uninformed opinion and not fit for publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.75.82 (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The section is referenced though and your content is original research which is not permitted, if you can find reliable third party references that back up your claims it could be added.Theroadislong (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

My sources, Isaiah 40:22, Job 26:7, Ecclesiastes 1:7, Isaiah 55:10, this ia an independant third party which confirms the theory that I proposed; that the author of these texts had multiple meanings for the word "heavens" and an understanding of the hydraulic cycle. A source for the theory that there could be multiple sources of flood waters contributing to a flood of large proportion: http://www.kjvbible.org/geysers.html Source for the theory that there are two groups of animals, clean and unclean, in the ancient Hebrew culture, contemporaries of Noah, and indeed Noahs own religious system: (Leviticus 20:25) . . .And YOU must make a distinction between the clean beast and the unclean and between the unclean fowl and the clean"

The bible is a primary source and the other would not be a reliable reference for Wikipedia.Theroadislong (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Biblical Scholarship; Sources and verification

"In the 19th century, Biblical scholars were beginning to examine the origins of the Bible itself... scholars discovered in the Ark narrative two complete, coherent, parallel stories... scholars came to agree that the entire Pentateuch"

Which scholars? What published works are cited? Is there a unanimity of opinion amongst all scholars, or are these weasel words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.75.82 (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There are many more references and sources for this in the article Documentary hypothesis which maybe of use?Theroadislong (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I checked that out and I see the theory behind it, in my example where the writer says "And YOU must make a distinction between the clean beast and the unclean and between the unclean fowl and the clean" the hypothesis is that four or more different writers wrote that sentence over a period of hundreds or thousands of years with multiple revisions and editing, along with some spurious remarks... so it really says whatever you want it to, depending on how you figure someone altered it! That there was no distinction between clean and unclean animals, so there is a contradiction between the two orders given to Noah, one saying to collect 2 animals and the other saying to collect 7 clean animals.

This is exactly where the problem comes in, when you disallow examination of the source materials when evaluating the source materials. If all we are allowed to do is examine other peoples theories and explanations it just turns into a huge argument from authority, this guy is more expert, there are more of my experts, this expert cheated on his taxes, etc. I came on here thinking I could have open debate and discussion to try and insure that the articla had truthful and complete information, but I see now it is more of a political realm than scientific. No thanks, goodbye Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.75.82 (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As opposed to a huge argument as to whose armchair exegesis is better? I'd rather argue over experts -- there're fewer of them, and what they claim is at least published-and-therefore-reasonably-immutable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Interpreting primary sources in any field is difficult. Many generations of scholars have worked on understanding the Bible from a variety of points of view -- are you (66.183.75.82) proposing that random Wikipedians are better at it than they? Most Wikipedians don't even read Hebrew or Greek, let alone have any knowledge of textual criticism. --Macrakis (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that you should use common sense and reasonableness, as well as fairness in evaluating articles. For example, some are opposed to me using excerpts form the Bible to explain what the writers of the Bible thought on certain matters, specifically whether they distinguished between two types of animals, clean and unclean. I have quoted the Bible showing clearly that there is such a distinction, it is inappropriate for me to do so by your standards. The author in the main article I am questioning has also quoted formt he Bible to say the Bible says this and that therefore is contradictory. So how is it he can quote from two spots, theorize they contradict each other,it is acceptable but when I use the third quote which explains how both conditions can be satisfied without contradiction, it is unacceptable? His sources do not list any such conclusion as to the contradictions, only theorize that there were four or more authors with different writing styles, they can make no conclusion based on the sources which are "implied", since none are expressly cited save a reference to another wikipedia article, which does not directly address the subject of the accuracy of the statements, only questioning the sources. In as much as it does not go into the question of accuracy or discrepanices or contradiction, it only summarizes that there may be different authors, it could only lead to an ad hominem, saying that the source is not reputable/known/verified or consistent, since there is no other allegation other than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.75.82 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Translation of OTHER flood myths?

I would like to edit this sections title, because I believe it insists that the story is nothing but a myth. Evolvo365247 (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's saying it is a flood myth, not 'nothing but a myth'. There's a big difference. Dougweller (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

'Biblical narrative' note

Given the title of this section, and the fact that all paragraphs are explicitly cited to passages in the ESV Book of Genesis, does it serve any purpose to further state "Quotations are taken from the English Standard Version of the Bible; the Book of Genesis, Chapters 6–9"? It seems more than a little duplicative. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The note is the first mention of the ESV in the main text, but I agree there's no need to reiterate the "Gen. 6-9" mention. I'll shorten the note accordingly. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is there any need to mention the ESV at all? It is simply the translation that we happen to have quoted. We could as easily have taken some other translation. The ESV itself is in no way crucial to explicating the narrative. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Just speculating here (I wasn't the one who originally added the note), but maybe it's to clarify for readers who use different translations, and might otherwise start edit wars over which quotation is correct. After all, some versions (like the KJV) would give markedly different quotations for Gen. 6-9. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that the translation used would be far more visible to an editor (who would see the citation markup) than to the reader, this would seem unlikely. It seems more likely it is simply some editor belaboring the obvious. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any major objection to removing it. Maybe wait to see if any other editors weigh in, though. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Narrative? Clearly the religious delluded have been editing it again. Myth is the correct word and should be used! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.71.160 (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether one believes it or not, "narrative" is still the correct term. It can mean either a historical narrative or a fictional narrative, and thus is suitably neutral. Michaelmas1957 23:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Since when was neutrality appropriate when it is mathematically and physically impossible for the flood myth to be historical narrative? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5svTzxVa-xQ The elephant in the room is that there was no room for elephants and all the other animals in Noah's Ark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xardox (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the best solution to both is keeping 'biblical narrative' as that is correct. but adding 'mythological' to clarify that this biblical narrative is one that is not based in fact.JeffUK (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a good choice, since in the context of the story, it is not 'mythological'. The story in Genesis doesn't say "Noah, who is a myth, built a pretend boat, because it was a myth too." Telling people that it is a biblical narrative tells them that the source is the Bible, and if they consider the Bible mythological, ok, fine, if not, fine also. -- Avanu (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, stop screwing with the article. You might disagree with the validity of the story, but don't actually change the story details. -- Avanu (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not about what people 'consider' to be myth, it's about what is provably, factually, true. In this case, this part of the bible is clearly not true, other parts of the bible are true. 'biblical' alone does not make the distinction clearly enough for an encyclopedia. To make the statement that Noahs Ark 'Is A Vessel' when it never actually existed is simply not true. Unless someone has some evidence 09:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You're actually being rather patronizing to the reader. Is it required that we explain to our readers which part of the Bible you consider true or false? Simply explaining that it is a biblical narrative gives enough detail. The article doesn't say Noahs Ark 'Is A Vessel' and stop. It says "Noah's Ark is a vessel appearing in the Book of Genesis". Perhaps the reader is too tired to read the remainder of the sentence? -- Avanu (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who do not know that the book of genesis is a work of fiction, which is why it is important in an encyclopedia to make the distinction. Noahs ark is mythological, please do not revert this FACT unless you can provide evidence to the contrary on here. 09:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffUK (talk • contribs)

Because I don't want to be blocked or smacked for edit warring, I'm not going to revert your "fact", but I would recommend that you revert the latest change. If you don't, I'll have to take this to the Edit warring noticeboard. You can't simply say 'this is my fact', and base your edits on that. Within the context of Genesis, the boat is not fictional, and it is not mythological. You may say that the bible is a myth or is part myth, but again, I hardly see how that is a debate for the Noah's Ark article. Telling people it is the biblical narrative, from the Book of Genesis, would seem to be more than sufficient. Adding 'mythological' because you don't personally believe it is not a neutral pov edit. -- Avanu (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather come to a consensus on here, If we cant do so, this would be better fitted to the dispute resolution board rather than reporting it as 'edit warring.' Feel free to submit a dispute resolution request and we can get some advice on how to reach a consensus. JeffUK (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You're simply adding in a point of view that reflects your personal tastes. The boat is not fictional in the story of Genesis. Your description of it is contrary to the primary source here. As I said above, it doesn't say in Genesis, "A fictional guy named God asked a fictional guy named Noah to build a fictional boat". Attributing the source of material for the boat to Genesis and saying that Genesis is from the Bible is enough detail. Some people believe quite literally in the Bible, others do not. You're taking a position that somehow you personally know all the "facts", which is beyond policy here. I certainly can't ask you to provide a source that this doesn't exist, since proving non-existence is pretty much impossible. In any case, sourcing the tale to the Bible and Quran is more than enough. -- Avanu (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

As below, we explicitly state that characters/worlds/places are fictional or not in any other case, this seems to be convention and I believe it is a core fact about Noah's ark 80.4.144.29 (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you guys need to stop throwing around the word "fact" so much. I think you will find that "facts" are not nearly as provable as you seem to think. -- Avanu (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Major Title/layout changes

Hi all,

I'm kind of being bold here by making some layout changes. I hope it will serve better in looking up interested content. Trying to keep things chronological, shortened easier to read and catchier titles. I moved the narrative analysis up the page, in hopes to inspire more edits concerning text/source analysis. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Do we need to explicitly state that Noah's Ark never actually existed?

As per discussion above. Which has diverged from the 'biblical narrative' discussion. I feel that an article about an object or person which has never existed should include this fact prominently, as this is a key fact about the object in question. In line with other articles such as Hogwarts 'fictional british boarding school.' Snoopy 'fictional character.' Middle-earth 'Fictional setting' I have added 'mythological vessel' ( as 'fictional' will probably cause even worse edit wars...)

Not every source agrees that Noah's ark is fictional. A preponderance of sources will likely agree that it is biblical. So the idea that some editors think it is fictional is fine, but it isn't in line with sources and isn't even necessary. -- Avanu (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, both agree that 'fictional' is not appropriate, but 'mythological' has different connotations and is provably true, and is also confirmed by the inclusion of the book of genesis in the Creation_myths category JeffUK (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Not every source agrees that Noah's ark is mythological either. Same point as above. I've seen what other edits you are making and they all seem to track in a common direction. -- Avanu (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Not relevant to this discussion, and I stand by all of them JeffUK (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'll remind you that your facts are not the same as anyone else's facts, and so while we can agree on concepts in principle, the idea that you have this fact and it is the basis for an addition or edit is not in line with Wikipedia policy. -- Avanu (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Is your complaint that you don't think we need to tell people Noahs Ark is mythological (as you've said above), or that you don't think there's sufficient evidence that noah's ark is mythological? If it's the former, I think the links above prove that we normally explicitly state where something is fictional or mythological, If it's the latter will you be happy for mythological to be added back in with sufficient cites? JeffUK (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that beliefs that it is not mythological are fringe, in particularly see WP:VALID section of the NPOV guidelines and WP:FRINGE#Evaluating_claims. The most reliable academic sources state that it is mythological and thus we should as well in the wikipedia tone. Mythological isn't the same as fictional. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

While scholars might view it as a mythological vessel, it is not described as such by Genesis. The lead sentence starts with "Noah's Ark is a vessel appearing in the Book of Genesis...." The phrasing being suggested implies that the primary source, Genesis, claims this is a mythological vessel. No scholar would view it as literally saying that. -- Avanu (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I read it as two separate facts: 1.'It's a mythological vessel'. 2.'It appears in the book of genesis' if it was 'Appears in the book of genesis as a mythological vessel' I'd agree with you. Is there any way we could include 'mythological' whilst making it clearer to you that we're not saying genesis makes any claim that it's mythological? JeffUK (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem to me is whether you are now going to run through each and every article on Wikipedia adding the word mythological because that is your point of view. How do we determine with certainty which people and things are 'real' to you, which are 'fake', which are 'myth' and which do and don't need this new word of 'mythological'? I see absolutely nothing wrong with it as is. Some editors make the point that 'mythological' doesn't necessarily mean untrue, but in the lead sentence, this is not going to be clear to the average reader. Generally, people use the word mythological to describe something that is fictional, or at least not believed by them. The term biblical (or some similar analog to it) would seem to convey the same sentiment to the layperson, as well as to the scholar. And it is fully supported by sources. (For reference, please see WP:MOSINTRO "In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction", and WP:MOSBEGIN "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific") -- Avanu (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, some parts of the bible are historically accurate, some are not, so 'biblical' is overly general, which is why I want 'Mythological' in the lead. It's not my POV, it's true, and can be determined as such by appropriate references, (as per the principles of wikipedia this is how we define 'true' in the context of wiki articles.) Would you be happy to add this back in with appropriate references? JeffUK (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing really wrong with overly general in the lead sentence. Some people don't consider anything in the bible to be historically accurate, and it is certainly not written as a history text, at least not in our present understanding of that. So, are you saying you like 'Mythological' because it implies the same thing I'm saying 'biblical' does, i.e. it could be true or not be true? -- Avanu (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the word "mythological" explicitly referred to fictional (or at best, legendary) elements. Michaelmas1957 10:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

See the related article I linked to above for the clarification. It isn't the same as fictional IRWolfie- (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The implication isn't there. Instead, you have inferred it, but I don't think it is reasonable to do so. Any primary literature discussing mythological objects does not refer to it as a mythological object. For example, (although the usage of the word mythology is not exactly the same) an Táin Bó Cúailnge does not mention that Cú Chulainn is a mythological person but instead secondary sources though. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That's kind of my point though. In the lead sentence, the average reader will assume the same thing as Michaelmas1957 does above. Average people are not experts in ancient literature, history, or religion. They don't use terminology with precision. I'm not arguing against precise use of language, but I am arguing for clear use of language. -- Avanu (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

As we're getting stuck on whether mythological is the right word, how about 'Fictional' , this would be much clearer (it has one meaning and one meaning only) It's the word used when referring to non-existent objects in other literary works, (as above) and it's true. I also contend that it is a necessary part of the article, as the fact that noahs ark never existed, is central to any encyclopaedic description of it. JeffUK (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you are trying to push the point of view that Noah's Ark is fictional. This is a point of view, but not the only one, and it is not neutral to weigh in on one side in a dispute about which so much controversy exists, or to pretend that the point of view that it is fictional enjoys a monopoly when it does not. The point of view of the Oriental Orthodox Churches (for an example) is that it is not fictional, as well as other Jewish, Christian and Muslim bodies of adherents. How can we as neutral wikipedia state that this POV is now suddenly "wrong" because we've suddenly figured out all the answers? We can report on what their doctrines are, but we cannot get in the business of declaring which ones are false, this is transparently an attempt to marginalize these groups who dispute that it is fictional. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RNPOV, which explicitly uses this term as an example of policy. Mythology does not mean "false" in its formal sense. To avoid confusion, we can only use the word in that sense, and we should not avoid it because its informal sense may be understood differently. The mythology article covers the topic in detail, so providing a link will aid readers in understanding what we mean if they are not familiar with the term. If the preponderance of reliable secondary sources refer to this vessel as a mythological vessel, then we should too.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It may help if we look at parallels in other articles within Wikipedia. As we all know, Hogwarts really is fictional, and no-one has ever believed it to be otherwise, so I don't think that's a good parallel. What we need to look for are other examples of things that have featured in stories which large numbers of people have at one point believed to be true, but which are generally now regarded as untrue (that's what mythology is, based on my simple understanding of the term). So,

• From Cerberus: "Cerberus ... in Greek and Roman mythology, is a multi-headed hound"
• From Dreamtime: In the animist framework of Australian Aboriginal mythology, Dreamtime is a sacred era in which ancestral totemic spirit beings created the world.
• From Woden: Woden ... is a major deity of Anglo-Saxon and Continental Germanic polytheism.

So, if we're trying to avoid the word "mythological", how about something like "In traditional Christian and Islamic belief, Noah's Ark was a vessel which ... blah blah. The primary account is the book of Genesis, where it is described as ... blah blah"

I take the point that there are still many biblical literalists around at the moment, whereas there aren't, for example, many believers of ancient Greek and Roman mythology, and so it would be appropriate to point out that this large body of opinion regards the Ark as a real historical object, even in the lead if we want to, as long as we don't do that in isolation i.e. it needs to be juxtaposed with content which (a) points out the scientific consensus that the Ark is mythological and (b) explains that even though there are a large number of people who believe the Ark was real, there are very many more who are pretty certain that it wasn't, at least not in the sense that Genesis describes. SP-KP (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

@SP-KP, we're not "trying to avoid the word mythological", per WP:RNPOV. Your definition of "mythology" is also incorrect; see mythology. We use the term only in its academic sense, which is "a sacred narrative usually explaining how the world or humankind came to be in its present form". Noah's ark is a myth, according to the preponderance of reliable sources, and our goal on wikipedia is only, above all else, to summarize the reliable sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That aside, I like his comments on the lead, certainly needs to reflect the scientific consensus and should also mention that there are a number of people who believe for religious reasons (however that's worded) that it was real. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As long as we can find quality sources for it, that would be a great addition. The current text in the lead is, I believe, inadequate. It reads:

“ Although the account of the ark was traditionally accepted as historical, by the 19th century the growing impact of scientific investigation and biblical interpretation had led many people to abandon a literal view in favour of a more metaphoric understanding.[4][5][6] Though there have been many alleged sightings of Noah's Ark over the years,[7] no concrete physical evidence of the ark has been found. Biblical literalists continue to explore the mountains of Ararat in present-day Turkey, where the Bible says the ark came to rest, in search of archaeological remnants of the vessel.[8] ”

I think "metaphoric understanding" is a poor way of describing its acceptance today. This passage seems to give a lot of time to "ark hunters" and literalists without ever discussing modern views of the ark among the scientific community, believers and historians.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Jess, just to clarify, I said If we're trying to avoid the word "mythological" ... reading the above comments, some editors would clearly like us to do that. I wasn't suggesting that viewpoint represented consensus, merely suggesting how we could deal with that situation, should it prove to be the case. Personally, I can see both sides of the argument over this word, so don't want to enter into the argument. The meaning that I associate with the word may well not be a formal academic meaning, but then it's not likely to be as I'm not an academic specialist in mythology, and neither are the vast majority of readers of this article - we need to bear that in mind when choosing the language we use. If you as an author intend one meaning (the academic one) when using a word, but 99% of your readers are likely to interpret it to mean something different (the informal version) that's not good communication. SP-KP (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

SP-KP, I understand what you're saying clearly. Please read WP:RNPOV, which I linked twice above. RNPOV is a section of NPOV, a pillar of WP. The last paragraph says we cannot avoid the use of "mythology" simply because it may be confused with its informal sense. If we avoided 'myth' on those grounds, we'd be violating NPOV.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, with 6+ years of editing behind me, I do know just a little bit about Wikipedia's conventions and norms, although, you're correct, I hadn't seen the particular sentence within WP:RNPOV that you're referring to. As I said, I don't have a view on the inclusion of the term: I'm certainly not advocating for its inclusion in an informal sense - that certainly would go against policy, as you say. Take a look also, though, at WP:LABEL: do you believe that the suggested use of "mythology" in an academic sense in this article "establish[es] the scholarly context for any formal use of the term"? Is a wikilink enough to do that? It feels to me as though there's a little tension between policy & MOS here, which would be an interesting topic for discussion outside of the context of this specific article. We're straying away from the original question raised at the start of this section, though, which, if I've understood it correctly, is: "How do we best convey to the average reader that the modern rational consensus is that Noah's Ark no more than a "quaint story" (although a proportion of the population believe otherwise). By the way, I'm defintiely NOT advocating the inclusion of the words "quaint story" either, before anyone suggests that! :-) SP-KP (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi SP-KP. Thanks for reading through RNPOV. When there's a conflict between the MOS and NPOV, NPOV wins. NPOV is a non-negotiable policy - a pillar of WP - whereas the MOS is a guideline intended to help style our articles consistently. If there's any confusion on that point, it might help to ask at WP:Village pump (policy) or WT:NPOV. Ultimately, we have to follow NPOV in this case. The more interesting discussion is how we describe various views of the ark in the lead better than we are now. I think Doug and I both liked that part of your post, and I think discussing that in more detail, and perhaps dredging up some new sources, might be useful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. Re: the last two sentences of your post, yes, absolutely, let's do that. I made a part-formed suggestion above, which I'll repeat as it's probably got a bit lost amongst our discussion on other matters: "In traditional Christian and Islamic belief, Noah's Ark was a vessel which ... blah blah. The primary account is the book of Genesis, where it is described as ... blah blah". Do you feel that's heading in the right direction? Can you suggest some improvements to it? Oh, and nice fish pics by the way. SP-KP (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Definitely the right direction, much better than my original edit. looks like you've found something that's used consistently in this sort of situation. JeffUK (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

P. S. Conscious that my examples above aren't from Judeo-Christian mythology, I've gone on the hunt for some which are, and found:

• From Last Supper: The Last Supper is the final meal that, according to Christian belief, Jesus shared with His Apostles in Jerusalem before his crucifixion.
• From Biblical Magi: The Magi ... were, according to Christian legend, a group of distinguished foreigners ....

I've also found plenty of articles which share the problems that the original poster perceives with this one (e.g. Garden of Eden, Feeding the multitude), so we might either want to use our solution here as a template for fixing these, or broaden this discussion out and possibly even centralise it somewhere. Just a thought. SP-KP (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm completely uninvolved in this, and stumbled on the thread by accident. I write regularly on topics pertaining to ancient religions under the Roman Empire, where the issue of "mythology" vs. "religion" is a continuing difficulty. I've skimmed through this current version of the article, and IMHO it does a nice job of neutrality. Its use of the word "narrative" seems well thought out. "Biblical narrative" seems sufficient, neutral, and an expression that elicits "least surprise." "Myth" and "fiction" would be appropriate in sections discussing specific interpretational approaches attributed to scholars, when the terms reflect the usage of those scholars. I just think you'll save yourselves a lot of needless trouble if you confine their use to representing what specific sources say, and otherwise stick with "traditional story" or "biblical narrative" or some such. Apologies if this seems like butting in, but this may be a case where you've all done a better job than you think. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple issues at play, here, and I think we need to separate them out. The first is:

Should we use the word mythology in the text

Undoubtedly so. I notice that the article only mentions the word once, when referring to Hindu mythology at the very bottom. That's a glaring omission, and should be corrected. Insofar as our sources say this, we should too.

Should we state that Noah's ark is fictional

Probably not, at least not with that wording. We only report what reliable sources say. Do reliable sources say the ark was fictional? If the scientific consensus is that we don't have evidence for its existence, and we have quality sources saying so, then we could include content to the effect of "Certain religious groups, like some group believe that the ark is a historical vessel, but archeologists have found no evidence of the ark. Most commonly, the story of Noah's ark is seen as a metaphor for something by Christians and Muslims." That wording is not stellar, and we'd have to fill it in and modify it based on the sources, but that general layout would give reasonable coverage of views on the topic. I think our current coverage (present in the last paragraph of the lead) is woefully inadequate.

Should we rewrite the opening sentence(s)

Perhaps. I sort of like the opening sentences now, at least insofar as they are arranged. I'm unclear on the problem we'd be attempting to resolve in changing them. Could someone elaborate? I do like that the article begins with the title, "Noah's ark is a vessel appearing...", instead of being placed mid-sentence "In these books, Noah's ark is..." If we do change the first sentence, I think we should strive to keep that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Since Great Deluge is now redirected to Flood myth, Noah's ark serves as the only wiki page to discuss the story of the biblical flood from a secular standpoint. The alternative is the Rabbanic views on page Noach (parsha). Therefore, Noah's ark page is more than just about a vessel... and should likewise, not lead the intro. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Jason, I'm not sure I follow you. Every article on WP should be written from a secular standpoint; that is to say, we don't write these articles from a religious POV that would suggest they are literally accurate (or literally inaccurate, depending on the religion we choose) in wikipedia's voice. That said, you wrote that this article is about "more than just a vessel". I presume you're saying that the article is about a story (which contains a vessel). Is that correct?   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct... and correction... Noach (parsha) is Jewish religious POV on WP, and is not secular. Is that wrong? No. And I'm not debating this, either. Jasonasosa (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No, Mann_jess. Our policy here is to base things on the reliable sources, and you don't get to throw out a source for just having its own point of view. Articles are written from source-based standpoint. Its kind of annoying for a clearly religious story to be treated as if it has to be written in a very disclaimer-type way just because some editors don't agree with the religions that support it. I'm not advocating for a proselytizing narrative, but it is unDUE to write it where everything has to have aspersions cast on it where it comes across as if an ardent atheist was trying to convince the reader to deny religion. -- Avanu (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Where did I say we should throw out a source? I said we need to follow the sources. I've said that a bunch of times.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

@Jason It's a Jewish POV because of its topic, or it's a Jewish POV because of how it's written? The former is good, the latter is bad. It looks like that article needs a lot of work (WP:POVFORK comes to mind), but I'm not sure how that relates to this one. As far as the distinction between this article being about a vessel and a story about a vessel, I can understand that. Looking at the article now, we appear to have a lot of content about the ark itself, and only a little bit independently discussing the story. Do you think we should have more? Are you aware of quality sources we're not using which discuss the story in depth in a larger context than we're covering now?   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

See next section... Jasonasosa (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Genesis flood narrative

I vote to reopen Genesis flood and move all Noaich narrative flood content back to that page. I believe the WP:SCOPE of this page should strictly be on the ark, as a vessel, itself.Jasonasosa (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Flood myth and this article both seem to be a reasonable size (small, even). This article is about 22k, including expanded references. Flood myth is about 3k. WP:Article size says that's pretty normal. Do we really need a third article covering this topic? Could we not move the content on the flood over to Flood myth instead, which already covers this topic? Also, do we have enough content in this article right now to justify narrowing the scope so much? AFAICT, section 4 and 5 are the only two devoted to discussing the ark separate from the flood, which is about half the article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... That content I deleted... actually could go to that Flood myth article, because there isn't any real content about the Noaich narrative on that page. The WP:SCOPE of Flood myth is not just about the Noaich narratives, but all inclusive of other myths as well, thus WP:WEIGHT needs to be considered when pasting Genesis content over there. So, moving any more Genesis flood content over there is WP:UNDUE. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a matter of weight as much as WP:Systematic bias. The Flood myth article is about all flood myths, and it should cover each of them completely (or branch off IFF there's too much content). It would, indeed, be a shame to cover the Judeo-Christian flood myth more than the others, but that's a reason to add more content for the others, not less content for Genesis. I'd merge over whatever content you think would fit (or propose it on the talk page), and if it turns out to be too much, we can decide what to do. Does that sound reasonable?   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

LMAO... WP:Systematic bias... that one is really scraping at the bottom the barrel for slinging WP policies around. (slaps knee in laughter). Moving on... I already moved that deleted content over. That tidies up nice and well with the other 2 flood myths listed under mythologies. Needs other mythologies, not just Genesis though. Jasonasosa (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about systematic bias. It's an essay, not policy, and it pretty fairly describes the issue here; we have one (common, predominantly Western) myth represented more than others. That's a problem, but one to solve by adding more content about less-represented topics. Anyway, thanks for moving the content over. I thought it was there at one point, but I'm not sure if it was moved (or why it would have been). Anyway, I'm off to bed. Thanks for the hard work.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Nighters... It's all coming together now. I do wish to reboot Genesis flood though, because it does deserve its own page as it has its own WP:SCOPE not shared on this page Noah's ark or Flood myth. But it seems, that the only way for that to happen, is to exceed the WP:WEIGHT on this article, I guess. Jasonasosa (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree - but I'd call the new article Genesis flood narrative, in keeping with the already-existing Genesis creation narrative article, and I'd close this article down and merge the ark-info with the new article. PiCo (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good User:PiCo. I'm on board with that. Jasonasosa (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The existence of systematic bias is not controversial. Hence the existence of the associated wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)