Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Noah's Ark. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

I don't think this article should carry the burden of having to describe and defend the documentary hypothesis - that should be the topic of another article. This article should simply have a table identifying the doublets.

The dispute isn't limited to whether it was one pair (two animals) or seven pairs (fourteen animals), but also seven animals. See e.g. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2180 Schizombie 02:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the KJV. I believe it says, 7 pairs of every clean and one pair of every unclean (including dinosaurs of that time). It was a long hard ride in the flood. Could Genesis 6:21 be a hint that the 8 people on the Ark, had to be vegetarians during the year long flood ride? But, if it wasn't expected of them, the extra clean animals would've probably have been desired. During that time, of being in the flood waters, there were probably quite a few animal births, since they were in the Ark for more than a year. So, I don't think there was a problem with immediate extinction of any species. Slash Gordon 10:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Noah wasn't given dispensation by God to eat meat until after he came out of the ark. This was true for Adam and all generations until then. This means that he never ate any of the animals while he was in the ark. Additionally, none of the animals had babies in the ark as they were forbidden from procreation for the duration, although the Talmud does mention a couple of species that defied the ban. Benjy613 18.35, 4 April 2006

What are you debating? There are two versions in of the flood story running simultaneously in Genesis. See our previous discussions on the issue. They might be in the archives. Jim62sch 10:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. The article notes the two versions. The problem is there is a debate about one of those versions, whether it's seven animals or fourteen. The article doesn't address that directly, so the scattered references to the fact that could be confusing: Noah's Ark#Textual analysis "seven pairs (Gen 7:2–3)" versus "(seven of each clean animal)" (latter repeated twice). Noah's Ark#Biblical literalism and the Ark "seven [...] of each clean animal" versus "seven pairs of clean animals" Noah's Ark#In Rabbinic tradition "admitting seven of the first". Шизомби 08:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably predictably I can't find the reference I need to answer your question, but here's what I recall from memory: You're quite right that there's debate about the meaning of the Jahwist account, the one that gives us either 7 animals or 7 pairs, depending on taste (most translations find the idea of 14 clean animals a bit too much and settle for just 7 individuals). In fact the original Hebrew is ambiguous: it says (and here's where I regret not being able to find my source) something like "seven-seven". The King James is perhaps the most faithful here, in that it carries the ambiguity over into English. Sorry I can't give you the source for this, but I'm pretty sure it was an article in the online Jewish Encyclopedia. PiCo 09:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Animals by pairs and seven pairs:

"Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate; and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive on the face of all the earth. For in seven days I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground." And Noah did all that the LORD had commanded him. [7:2-5]" [1]. The Septuagent shows 'επτα 'επτα or seven pairs. Jim62sch 22:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

But what does the Hebrew Torah say? And what's the state of Jewish thought? PiCo 23:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

But see the apologetics link posted above. Шизомби 00:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The Hebrew says"mikol(from all)habhema hat.hora(the clean cow)tiqach(take)Shiv'a shiv'a(seven each or seven and seven)ish vishto(man and woman). A vague understanding of Hebrew is all it takes to understand that "shiv'a shiv'a, ish vishto", means one shiva represents man cow and the other represents woman. An alternate reading could be "sheva sheva" but it would still mean the same thing. Exegetical Rabbis are constantly involved in head games and should be ignored unless you are writing an article about what they think. They are involved in either trying to make the contradictions make sense or find some mystical reason, such head games do not belong in the main part of the article. The text is clear, not ambiguous. Also, and I just thought of this, you are not talking about what the Rabbis think, because this comes under the subject heading "Documentary Hypothesis". In that case, there is no relevance of the Rabbinical interpretation. Another important note is that though p is ineloquent, his language throughout the pentateuch account not too consistent that his language usage cannot be considered ambiguous. p is the clearest of the writes, because he uses little world play and is dependably straight forward. For instance a few lines down "ki yamim od shiv'a" because/for another seven days" - here, it is obviously just "seven more days".

I'd be happy for you to do an edit referencing that article and stating that there is uncertainty. Perhaps you could put it in a footnote. PiCo 00:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to find a good spot to mention it. I think it belongs in the article proper and not a footnote since the article itself alternates between stating seven and seven pairs. Шизомби 11:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason the confusion between either 7 pairs of clean animals or 1 pair of unclean animals seemed to bother the writer of the article is that he wasn’t sure about the meaning of the word “clean.” Clean animals were edible animals, not washed. According to the Levitical diet for an animal to be clean it had to do 2 things: chew the cud and have a cloven hoof. Cows, goats, and lambs are clean, but camels, horses, dogs, and cats are unclean.

You're not even close. Read the arhives (and I don't think a lecture on "clean" was needed). •Jim62sch• 21:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. However, there is no confusion in the biblical text about the fact that God ordered Noah to collect of the clean animals 7 pairs and of the unclean animals only 1 pair. Where is the contradiction to which the main article is alluding? Certainly not in the verses quoted.

First, please sign your contributions - it's good to know to whom one is talking. (To do this, type four tildes - the squiggle that looks like ~ a worm). Second, there were two separate confusions. The first came when we were writing the article, and we weren't sure whether the bible said seven animals or seven pairs of animals. That got cleared up - it turned out that we'd been using the King James version, and it wasn't reliable on this point. The second confusion is the one mentioned under the Documentary Hypothesis section, and it refers to the confusions that scholars saw, or thought they saw, in the 18th and 19th centuries, and which led to the formulation of the hypothesis. These confusions are found throughout the bible, not just in the Noah story - a particularly famous one is the question of when Saul first met David, for which there are two accounts, and which can only be reconciled by supposing that Saul had a shockingly bad memory. Anyway, the confusions were behind the hypothesis, and the section here is explaining why the hypothesis was invented. It's not appropriate to tell the scholars they were wrong, even if you think they were - we just describe their thinking. Incidentally, the documentary hypothesis is today accepted by almost all mainsrteam biblical scholars - the point of view which holds that there are no conrtadictions is very much in the minority. PiCo 01:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I read recently that the "Documentary Hypothesis" was now largely discredited. If I can find more about this I will note it here; but will put the details in the DH article. ^rossnixon 02:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that any such discrediting occured in the minds of certain apologists, and not among anyone else (if it had been larger, it would have been big news). JoshuaZ 02:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"The twentieth century has essentially seen the downfall of the Documentary Hypothesis in scholarly circles" - see http://www.souldevice.org/writings_dochyp.html ^rossnixon 01:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ross, I know you're sincere in what you say and do, but believe me, that source is not a reliable one. For example, it says (in another section, talking about Islam): "the Quran is believed to be the actual words God used...and written down by Allah himself." I lived six years in the Middle East, and this simply isn't true. The belief of every Muslim I met was that the Koran was dictated by Allah to Mohammad, who then recited it to others, and was these others - not Allah and not Mohammad - who wrote it down. The website isn't accurate on Islam, and I doubt therefore that it's accurate elsewhere. To the best of my knowledge, the documentary hypothesis is still the accpeted scholarly hypothesis regarding the origin of the Hebrew bible. PiCo 06:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, an no religious studies course I've ever taken has mentioned this fact because? Or for that matter, why there is still so much apologetics written attacking the DH? JoshuaZ 01:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think muslims are involved in the search too. I don't know arabic, though, so if there are books on the subject in arabic they probably wouldn't come up. Also, there have got to be many more modern allusions? Schizombie 02:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather have a section called "Cultural references" (or similar), dealing with the influsence of the Ark story in Western culture (and any other). It would deal with art (tracing evolving depictions of the ark over the centuries - it started out being shown as a grave, of all things, and only later turned into a boat), in literature (Medieval mystery plays), music (Britten's "Noah's Fludde" or however he spelled it based on the old play), and the literary efforts of Julian Barnes and others of his calibre. Pop culture, i.e. space-opera and so on, and maybe the bit about children's toys, could go as bullet-points in a single short entry. But I don't have the resources to write all that. You're welcome to try your hand. PiCo 23:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Did someone mention dinosaurs? Oh, I think, I did. Noah didn't have to take the biggest, but instead took the younger/smaller of each species. Also, who is to say, that the most ferocious dinosaurs, such as the T-Rex or Allosaurus, weren't already extinct from being hunted for their hides, before the flood arrived? Maybe, those specific dinosaurs never existed anyway. We know how paleontologists love to take a big tooth, and then draw a huge, honkin', mean looking dinosaur around it, on a piece of paper, and then say, "Here's your proof"! I think that there were dinosaurs that were on the Ark, but, they were very manageable, perhaps many were vegetarians, instead of being carnivorous. And probably, many of those species, never entered the minds of the paleontologists today... and many of the dinosaurs that entered the minds of paleontologists today, never entered the Ark, because they never existed. The Brontosaurus, for instance, only existed in the minds of over zealous paleontologists, who took the head of one dinosaur, and stuck it on the body of another dinosaur. This lie existed for almost 100 years. From reading these horror stories, of paleontologists connecting bones, jaws, teeth, and vertabrae, from dinosaurs, that are located many miles apart from each other, and then tag some million year age on the species, would be humorous, if it wasn't so disturbing. So, it's more likely that many paleontologists mixed and matched bones with the wrong bones, and created something that never existed. These guys are pseudo-scientists, in the purest form, that live, only to discredit the Great Flood and the Bible. Remember the Ice Age (the answer to the Great Flood) that killed off the dinosaurs? Now, it's the comet that did it. Slash Gordon 10:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, If we are going to discuss Dinosaurs, I think we should very well discuss the existence of "Evil Ducks" I mean there clearly has to be a load of evil ducks running around. Noah would have been like there is a big flood coming, but all of a sudden the ducks are like we float now, we will float then. Makes Sense if you think about it.

It's possible some animals were extinct, but fossils only form when they are buried rapidly in flood-like situations, so we can assume that no remains of already extinct animals will ever be found. Check the size of dinosaur eggs - and discover that all dinosaurs start out small (no need to take large ones). Oh, and recent evidence shows that T-rex was a slow vegetarian type. ^rossnixon 10:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean like creationists who eat vegetables? 70.137.148.216 07:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the dinosaurs that were buried alive, and quickly during the flood. They were piled up together in under water pockets where they died. What a mess for the paleontologist, trying to connect the bones of those dinosaurs. I wonder what the paleontologists reasoning is, for the pile up of dinosaur bones in one place: "A T-Rex must've tossed the bones in a neat pile after every meal". Slash Gordon 11:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to to discuss standard flood geology claim and the evidence for them, I suggest you go to the usenet group [2] (which you can acesss from google groups, among other ways). This is not the proper location. Howeve, I will briefly note that a) fossilization can take place under many different circumstances and the types and nature of the fossils will reflect under what circumstances they formed. b) the claim that t rex was a vegetarian is simply ridiculous. It had sharp teeth and powerful jaw muscles to be a vegetarian? The other claims made here are similarly wrong, but this is really not the place to discuss it. JoshuaZ 13:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Big teeth and powerful jaw muscles like the (vegetarian) gorilla?

Ross, again, this is not the proper forum for this. However, if you must know I said "sharp teeth and powerful jaw muscles." While gorillas have somewhat sharp canines(well, at least the males, the females are duller), they have almost perfectly flat molars. I strongly recommend that we continue this conversation on talk.origins or some other forum. This is not the proper location. JoshuaZ

Why is this discussion, about dinosaurs in the wrong place, when the subject is still Noah's Ark and whether or not dinosaurs could have been on the Ark ? If this subject is put over in 'Origins', someone would complain about " the Noah's Ark subject shouldn't be here in 'Origins' "... even though the subject also includes dinosaurs. By the way, are you sure those sharp teeth, that the paleontologists matched up with the T-Rex, were found with a T-Rex remains, and not found 20 miles away, laying right next to some huge carnivore? My faith in some over zealous paleontologists is slim to none. Now back to the subject of Noah's Ark and the Dinosaurs... I've heard one theory, why many of the animals, even dinosaurs would be easily handled by those on the Ark, is that the animals went into a state of hibernation. Slash Gordon 08:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've an idea -- go to the AiG website and bathe in its wisdom. Jim62sch 00:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Slash, in general wiki talk pages are for discussing improvements to the articles. Even if we did arrive at a consensus as to the plausibility of dinosaurs being on the ark, anything derived on this talk page would be by defintion OR. Therefore, this is the wrong forum for such discussions. And actually, talk.origins discusses global flood related issues all the time, and has a very flexible charter about topic discussions. In an effort to get this to stop, I will refrain from replying to your snide remarks about hard working paleontologists and hand waving about hibernation. Take it to talk.origins. JoshuaZ 00:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, great! JoshuaZ... and your remarks belong here more than mine? Hey, Jim62sch... actually, I bathe there a lot .... Slash Gordon 09:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Methinks Slash is missing the point regarding the purpose of the talk page. As for bathing at AiG, why am I not surprised? Jim62sch 10:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Slash, first please indent your comments. It makes conversation threads easier to follow. Second, the point is very simple: this is not the forum for discussing whether or not the flood occured and related issues. Which is why I did not give a long response above detailing just how incorrect your above accusations are. It wouldn't belong on the talk page either. If you want to discuss this, feel free to take it to talk.origins. This is my last message here on the topic and I strongly encouraged everyone, including Jim, to not respond to any further comments by Slash on this topic that occur on this talk page. JoshuaZ 17:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed this small section. It contained very little - a comment to the effect that there are toy arks for children, a reference to a novel, and to the use of an ark theme in science fiction. I think that we should leave this out until we have more "meat" to put in it. PiCo 01:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggest is it time to archive this talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Baidawi gives the dimensions of the Ark as 300 cubits by 50 by 30, and explains that in the first of the three levels wild and domesticated animals were lodged, in the second the human beings, and in the third the birds. On every plank was the name of a prophet. Three missing planks, symbolising three prophets, were brought from Egypt by Og, son of Anak, the only one of the giants permitted to survive the Flood. The body of Adam was carried in the middle to divide the men from the women.

At footnote 22 you will find links to two articles from the online Jewish Encyclopedia, "Noah" and "Ark of Noah". These were the sources for the information as it appears in the Wikipedia article. JE's own sources for Baidawi and others are given only in the Noah article. The Baidawi appears to be his Commentary on the Koran. (Please sign your comments with four tildes, the tilde being this squiggly symbol ~ ). PiCo 06:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The article says "misapplied etymology" under "Gopher wood" in the section "Biblical literalism and the Ark". Who says it's misapplied? I assume that the bible translators who call it cypress would disagree that it's "misapplied". —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 01:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As the article says, the word "gofer" is not known in any other Hebrew text. Possibly the text is corrupt and some other word was meant, or possibly the word is simply not Hebrew. Whatever the reason, the lak of any other instances makes comparison and translation impossible - hence the decision of the King James editors to leave it untranslated. If the word is not Hebrew, then Assyrian "giparu", meaning reeds, seems plausible, given the fact that the Mesopotamian flood-hero made his boat from his reed house (these southern Iraqi reed-houses were still being built until fairly recently, and photos can be found in, for example, the travel books of Wilfred Thesiger and Gavin Maxwell, together with photos of boats made from the same reeds). Nevertheless, this is merely speculation. "Kofer", pitch, is also a plausible candidate if we accept that the word is a corrupted error for something in Hebrew. A derivation from Hebrew "gushere", cypress, seems less likely - "kofer" could give rise to "gofer", but it's difficult to see a mistake that could lead from "gushere" to "gofer". Pine and cedar are even less likely. The bible translators who call it cypress are presumably motivated by a modern tradition, but it would be better to leave it untranslated. PiCo 09:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In the second paragraph under "The search for Noah's Ark", it says "local authorities have renamed a nearby mountain "Mount Cudi," making it one of at least five Mount Judis in the Middle East". Is it Mount Cudi or Mount Judi? Jwillbur 00:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's both - Cudi is the Turkish spelling of Judi, but same pronunciation. PiCo 00:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does it discuss the sheer impossibility of fitting multiples of every living animal in a boat made of wood with millennia-old technology. There have been scientific papers showing that the concept of Noah's Ark is utterly absurd. So why isn't this mentioned? --Cyde Weys 00:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Not sure. Was it included when this article originally became featured? Otherwise it probably shouldn't have been made featured. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-28 00:47
• If you want to add a section, you might start with Google Scholar results. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-28 00:49

I suggest you re-read the Literalism section very carefully. PiCo 01:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This article reads like Ark apologia. What is this? The numerous literalist websites give varying answers, but are in general agreement that none of these problems are insurmountable. Of course they're going to say the problems are not insurmountable, if they were, they weren't literalists! And the article doesn't go into enough depth about why the Ark is utterly impossible. It says that no wooden boat could possibly be that big, but ends on the note that the apologists say it's possible (LOL). Then it says it couldn't possibly hold all the animals, but again, the apologists say it's possible. The article needs to show more of the real science (see this) and a lot less of the Ark apologetics saying everything is possible, because of course they're going to say it's possible, and second, they don't offer any proof of this, just hand-waving. Do you know how many people it takes to build a boat 450 feet long? It takes thousands of people (including the people in the factory needed to manufacture the parts). To say that it could be done by a dozen people without the benefit of modern construction techniques is absurd. --Cyde Weys 02:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So on one side we have literalist editors who feel the article makes those who believe in the truth of the Ark look like fools, and on the other we have people like yourself who believe it reads like a literalist apologia. Must be doing something right. PiCo 02:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That still doesn't address the substantive concerns that I brought up. Just because some other random people think something mean that I'm not right. --Cyde Weys 02:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

A study of the science of the Ark would turn into an article even longer than this one, which is long enough already. If you want to create such an article, be my guest, but I think you'd get tired of the effort. What I think is realy going on in yuor mind is a desire to prove to the believers that're comprehensively wrong. But believe me, if you start stacking up facts from science about why the Ark is impossible, the believers will match you fact for fact (or factoid for factoid), and at the end of the day there'll be no clear winner. Look at it this way: Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a debating forum, and the aim is to describe beliefs, not to win converts. PiCo 03:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cyco, there is far too little criticism of the entire concept. So what if the literalists feel like fools, they ARE fools. Mackan 04:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Where did Noah keep the woodworms?160.84.253.241 07:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Julian Barnes's "History of the World in Ten and a Half Chapters" is based on this very question. PiCo 07:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The fools who shout that the ark story is a "sheer impossibility" have probably not looked into the explanations given on many websites. I assume we have at least one of these linked to. ^rossnixon 11:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, calling people fools is much easier than presenting evidence. Well done. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-28 14:35

My Opinion is; the person who stated above that the believers of this embarrassingly ludicrous and utterly preposterous myth are fools, does not take the time to gather, collate and present the mountain of evidence that would show without a doubt the impossibility of the claims Noah's myth makes as to assume such a task would be an exercise in time wasting on par with going to a psychiatric ward and explaining to patient x why he/she is not Napoleon I.

Let's face it, this is an argument that's never going to get anywhere. The impossible is perfectly possible if God wills it. God is the ultimate trump card. When God walks in the door logic flies out the window.

When discussing a belief you have to take all of the belief into consideration, rather than picking at just one or two points. For example, Christians and Hebrews believe that before Noah began the carnivorous age (back when everyone was a vegetarian) people lived to be 800 to 900 years old and also were about three times taller than today’s men are. Although Adam didn’t live long enough to enter the ark, Adam knew Noah and even knew Noah’s son Shem. Starting from this premise we can deduct that their cubit measure was probably then taken from Adam who was probably an 18-foot-tall dude. If to us today a cubit is about 18-inches, to Noah a cubit (from Adam’s arm) had to be about 54-inches or three times as long. With that information in mind, we would have to burry our 450-foot ark and resurrect it as 1,350-foot ship. Wow! Jason Livanos

Why is this article using the old style of references? Those make it very hard to add new ones. The newer style using <ref>, </ref>, and <references /> is generally much preferred. --Cyde Weys 00:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• For your recent addition, I suggest finding published sources, rather than Talkorigins, just to avoid complaints. The talkorigins pages cite their sources, so you should start there. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-28 00:58

The reason this article is using old-style references is because neither I nor, apparently, anyone else knew about the new ones. PiCo 00:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Most articles these days are being written with the new ones. They're much nicer. Ben Domenech is an example of an article that uses them. They're much, much easier to keep up-to-date, and adding a new reference is as simple as adding the information inline. You don't need to separately edit the References section. --Cyde Weys 01:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Tada, all done, and much nicer now.  :-D Cyde Weys 01:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Cyde. I added another ref while you were doing it, fortunately right at the end - I'll have a try at fixing it up in line with this new system. PiCo 01:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The best part of this is you don't need to worry about making sure if refs numerically match up with what they're supposed to, because it's all done automatically. And adding a ref is as simple as putting it right behind the sentence it refers to; you don't need to put in a ref pointer and then add a ref anchor at the bottom with the rest of the ref information. --Cyde Weys 01:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Good work on the reference updates. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-28 03:15

More like updating references while under fire. There were penis pictures being posted in between ref edits and everything. It's like that old joke ... "Why do the Swiss have wine openers on their army knives? So they can quickly open up bottles of wine while under enemy fire." --Cyde Weys 04:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that this article is FA it's inevitably attracting a lot of edits, and inevitably they're going to be controversial, no matter what they say, and in no time at all it's going to turn 9into something quite unlike the article that was selected as an FA. So I'm trying to keep the article as it was prior to today. Rossnixon was simply the last to edit prior to today. PiCo

• This is exactly what happened with Christmas. By the time it was suggested to be on the main page on December 25, 2005, it looked nothing like its original form, and even contained sections of copyvio. I wouldn't suggest mass reversions in such a case (it had been an FA for a year), just a demotion. In this article, as long as new additions aren't random factoids, or completely unsourced, I would allow them to stay, provided that they are productive additions. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-28 00:53
• I'll try to follow your suggestion, if only because I'll be running into the 3-revert rule by the time I finish a cup of coffee at this rate. The problem is going to be deciding what's productive and what's POV-pushing. Should be a fun day. PiCo 00:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• You're not allowed to do what you're trying to do. If the edits are good and add information that the article was previously lacking, you can't just delete them. This is especially concerning because the article lacks a lot of critical analysis on the Ark (basically the whole scientific angle). --Cyde Weys 00:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• While that would be true for normal articles, the bar for quality edits is set much higher for featured articles, which have been identified as being of the highest quality in their current state (although I disagree for Noah's Ark, given what you have cited above). With Christmas, most of the edits were "good" and "added information". Individually, they didn't harm the article, but when they added up to hundreds of major edits, the final product was just horrible (see Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Christmas). So, I suggest only allowing major additions which are well sourced and relevant. Minor additions, especially pop culture references and random phrases added to sentences, should be reverted with a careful explanation. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-28 01:02

Sorry, all, but Cyde is correct. Whether the article is featured or not, the points he made should not have been left out to begin with. And that's as much as I wish to say on this topic. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't make such sweeping generalizations. The edits have to be considered individually. If 1,000 people add a minor sentence in random spots (as happened with Christmas) this article will turn to crap, just as Christmas did. Reversion is allowed, especially for unsourced additions, especially for featured articles. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-28 03:11

• Does that mean we can still revert people who insist that it's a historical event, like 4.157.5.222 did?--205.188.116.66 01:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh nevermind, he's moved onto blatent vandalism now, so I guess it's a bit of a moot point--205.188.116.66 01:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course, if they don't cite reliable sources. Citing no sources for such a change = instant reversion. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-28 03:08

This sentence was added today: "To this day no evidence has emerged to support the claim that Noah's Ark has been located on top of Mount Ararat[33]. The shape identified in satellite photos turned out to be merely an oddly-shaped rock face (like the Face on Mars) [34]." I have a few problems with it. First, the subject is already covered in the two final paragraphs of the section, and at a greater level of detail. Scond, the references given at [33] are given in greater detail in other sources in the References section. Third, the reference given in [34] doesn't support the claim made in the sentence (i.e., that the shape shown in satellite photos has been proven to be a rock-face). Can you improve it please? PiCo 01:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind - I've exchanged the new para for a single sentence that I think gets across the point you want to make, namely that the "artifact" has been declared a natural formation by the scientific community. Ok? PiCo 01:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd've left Cyde's edit as it was. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I added in a single sentence summary that points out that, despite many and various repeated claims of Ark sightings, none of them turned out to be real. --Cyde Weys 01:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• The biggest problem is thats difficult to know. None of them have been proven would be a better wording. Because, its not easy to access the region, and many claims are still controversial. I'm not suggesting it does exist, simply i think that is better wording. 12.220.94.199 03:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually the biggest problem is that there is no real evidence whatsoever. The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the refuter. There's no evidence that any of these "sightings" are real. The best "sighting", and I mean that ironically, turned out to be a section of wood that ended up being recent after it was carbon dated. There's absolutely no evidence for any of this stuff. It's just scam artists making money off of the gullible, like Bigfoot and Nessie. --Cyde Weys 16:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

1.) there is evidence in the form of many, many ancient (sp?) documents and historys. ( I mean WAAY ancient) 2.) just because you dont beleive in bigfoot and nessie, doesn't mean that everybody that thinks they saw something is gullible! - Jedi of redwall

• • • Thats POINT. Anyway, no evidence has been shown to prove the claims other than eye witness testimony and since there is no evidence, then you say none of the claims have been proven or none evidence has been shown to back up the claims. Not, the claims have been proven to be false, cause thats incorrect. Just because something isn't proven doesn't make if false. 12.220.94.199 18:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey y'all, remember that whole 'objectivity' thing? Calling your opponents in a discussion names is childish. That's what four-year-olds do. Let's be grown-ups, eh? Turridu 17:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This ain't rocket science -- none of the claims were legit. Did people claim to see something? Yes. Just like UFO's, Sasquatch, Nessie, the Grays, Big Foot, the Yeti, unicorns, dragons and pink elephants. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

well, if you're going to say their not legit, they most well known should be in the article, and why they aren't. Life I said before, the best way to do this, is say they have yet to be substantiated or no evidence has been presented to substantiate these claims or something like that. Not, these claims are false. Thats not neutral policy. I imagine the administrators on Wikipedia would agree with me on this. If I'm proven wrong, I'll admit it. I'm no religious fanatic, I just want to see neutral wording. 12.220.94.199 21:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The article comes across as proposing thing in either/or terms. There are those who believe in the JEPD explanation, and there are biblical literalists. Speaking for myself, I have doubts about JEPD, at least as it applies to this story, but I don't take the story literally, and I certainly don't think Moses wrote it, and I think that the Pentateuch clearly has more than one source. I think a lot of people are neither enamored of source criticism, nor are they literalists. Could this article possibly be a bit more nuanced? Carlo 02:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Your opinions are fine, but not in articles. If you add "some believe X", then you have to have a reliable source cited for this. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-28 03:12

This article is reccomended for deletion as there is no factual evidence proving its truth or that it ever happened.--KazMat32 03:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And since when is that a reason to delete an article? We have articles on Star Wars and that probably didn't happen. JoshuaZ 01:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. However, Star Wars is movies which is intended to make a profit as opposed to Noahs Arc being a religious story made up by some guys many years ago. Its purpose was not money or entertainment but to get people to actually believe that, that did happen and follow by that. Why anyone would believe that? Honestly, I could not tell you. Oh and look at the two articles Lost (game) and The Game(game) for info on things made up.--KazMat32 03:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well then, that is all the more reason why we should have it as an FA. Maybe it will help people understand why others believe what they do. In any event, I'm not sure how a story's original motivation matters for whether or not it is important )and I think quite a few might argue that the original point of many biblical stories was for entertainment anyways). By the way, you can sign your comments by putting ~~~~ at the end and your username will appear at the end. JoshuaZ 03:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see how people can believe in such random stories created by the bible since it is a way of life in some areas, but to make a fiction story like this one (as kazmat pointed out, there is no proof) it shouldn't be a featured article. I find it a bit controversial since there are so many aetheist or non-religious people who find these stories overrated.

The article is about the story of Noah's Ark. It is unquestioned fact that such a story exists and is important. The question of if the story is literally true or not is totally irrelevant to the need for an article on the subject. Compare luminiferous ether or Saint Valentine. The first doesn't exist and the second may not have. Nevertheless, they are still important enough to merit articles in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Vonspringer 02:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether a topic is stupid or controversial shouldn't effect whether the article about it is good enough to deserve FA. A far more potentially offensive topic was featured a few weeks ago, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In fact, I would argue that controversial topics are in fact the best examples for featured articles. If Wikipedia can make good articles about controversial topics, then it should be able to make good articles about almost anything.JoshuaZ 02:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls. Of course the Noah's Ark story isn't factual, and of course it deserves an article. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-28 03:18

Why anyone would want to believe you become nothing when you die is beyond me. I wonder how these people can enjoy life? I myself have seen plenty of proof of the existence of God, and no proof that atheists are right. CalgaryWikifan 13:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ignoring the fact that proof in the physical world is impossible, either way, article talk pages are not the place to list your personal beliefs and convictions. How does your remark relate to improving the article? Have you considered the possibility that there are religions without the Noah story? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-28 13:27

• • Fortunately, to avoid being a hypocrite, you added the same comment to people who on this discussion page insist their is no God, and therefore air their belief system. *searches page* Wait a minute. I guess you ARE a hypocrite, Brian0918. CalgaryWikifan 00:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

All myths are true in their connotation. Just as all religions are true in the same way. Pasado 06:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence supporting the Noah's Ark story. It's just that there are different interpretations of the evidence. And please do not abuse the word "true". Saying that all religions are true leads to logical impossibilities. It is fairer to say that all religions contain some truth. ^rossnixon 11:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is no evidence whatsoever supporting the Ark story. Unless you're hiding something from the rest of us. --Cyde Weys 16:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Who cares if no evidence exists? It's still interesting to study it even if it might be wrong. Unknown man 16:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As one of the primary editors of this article, I (an agnostic) felt that the factuality of the story did not truly matter. What mattered was not that I personally think that there was no flood, no ark, no Noah, but that we presented an NPOV article on the subject. Period. As for eveyone's religios beliefs, I really don't give a damn. If you're happy with your beliefs I'm happy for you, but don't try to foist them on others, or assume that everyone who disagrees with your spercific religion is an atheist. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The picture of the painting at the top of this article looks really good. I do not know much about Featured Pictures, but could this be a candidate for it? -EdGl 03:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• You could try, but it's not very large. Recently most new featured pictures have been over 1000px wide. If you want to nominate it, see WP:FPC. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-28 03:41

I don't see what's so good about the painting myself. --Cyde Weys 04:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• It's certainly not The Garden of Earthly Delights. :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-28 04:10

I'm sorry you don't like it, Cyde. I nominated it, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Noah's Ark, but an administrator needs to add {{FPC}} to Image:Noahs Ark.jpg. -EdGl 04:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone check the source in the "In Islamic tradition" section of this article? Coming from a muslim, the section does not sound factual at all. I especially feel a lot of bias from the source, which is the Jewish Encyclopedia and contains such quotes as "Mohammed's conception of the Ark of Noah" rather than "Islam's conception" and random comments such as a mentioning of "Og, son of Anak, the only one of the giants who was permitted to survive the Flood", which is wrong from what I have read since I have never seen any mention of giants in the Quran. -Zer0fighta 04:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If you feel the section can be improved, feel free. Just be sure to quote your sources. PiCo 04:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats the problem. I know the source is wrong/biased but I dont really have the time right now to find a source and fix it. I suggest just removing biased/doubtful information for now. Any objections anyone? -Zer0fighta 08:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd leave it for now, since it is at least a source. Personally I have no way of judging whether it's biased - but more to the point, it's getting on for a hundred years old, and I think scholarship has moved on. But by all means come back when you have the time and references and re-edit it. PiCo 08:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've read the article from Jewish Encyclopedia. The "—In Mohammedan Literature:" uses Baidawi as a source. I have found Baidawi's name used predominantly on an "answering islam" web site sourced to substatiate clearly biased claims. I can only come to the opinion that Baidawi is an obscure source. As stated below, stories in the Quran and Sunnah are focus on worhship, forgiveness, patience, and other universal concepts. The stories tend not to contain extraneous information (names, dates, and locations). Good examples of this is Surat Nuh (71). Also, the article on the Jewish Encylopedia site is rated 2.68. I'm not sure how that fits into all of this, but it is certainly worth a mention. --gh☼st 20:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I just say that in the Ouran (and the Sunnah) the Ark story is somewhat abstract and contains very few details (emphasis is given to the consequences of disobeying God's orders). There is, for example, no mention of the size of the Ark or the three levels mentioned in the article or the time the journey has taken. The whereabout of the Mount Judi is unknown and saying that the Ark has started the journey from Kufa (which was built at the time of khalifa Umar), circling the Kaaba (built by prophet Ibrahim) is simply considered by serious Muslim scholars as ridiculous (see book "Prophets' Stories" by Afif Tabara for instance). Same thing can be said about the raven and the dove and the formation of seas stories.

You're welcome to revise it any way you like. Just keep it no longer than the current length (this is just a matter of balance - don't want one section becoming markedly longer than the rest, and don't want the average to keep creeeping upwards), and cite your sources. PiCo 06:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the box that has been added to the bottom of the article needs some discussion. (I will paste it here.)

NOTE: Categorising a story as a myth does not necessarily imply that it is untrue. Religion and mythology differ, but have overlapping aspects. Many English speakers understand the terms "myth" and "mythology" to mean fictitious or imaginary. However, according to many dictionary definitions, these terms can also mean a traditional story or narrative that embodies the belief or beliefs of a group of people, and this Wikipedia category should be understood in this sense only. The use of these terms in this category does not imply that any story so categorized is historically true or false or that any belief so embodied is itself either true or false.

Sure, it sounds neutral enough, but is this permissible and necessary as a self-reference? Wikipedia doesn't, as a practice, preemptively guard against offending readers this way, at least not in the main namespace. Please see Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.

Also, as the box itself says, the statement it gives is pretty much implied in the definition of the word myth; if certain readers choose to ignore that fact and get ticked off over an NPOV treatment of the Bible, do we really need a special, self-referential message to placate them? (If so, we'd need them in a whole lot of other places too.) Thanks for your input. –Sommers ^(Talk) 12:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, someone has removed the box. If any disagreement arises, your opinions are welcome. Thanks. –Sommers ^(Talk) 18:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I really wish that people would take the time to read the archives. Were they to do so, they might find out that the box was not preemptive, but the result of a long dispute. Before going ape and editing an article, it might be best to check into the background. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the archives were more about whether or not to categorize Noah's Ark as a myth that the actual text of the disclaimer; the points raised by Sommers were not addressed (or I missed them and their resolution). mdf 23:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This box should be hidden in comment tags in the source, not displayed prominently on the article itself. If people remove the category ignoring the established consensus, they can simply be reverted. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Mdf is right, and I haven't heard or found any reason why the box is compatible with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Avoid self-references and Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates, so I'm going to be bold (or "go ape", if you insist) and follow Christopher Parham's suggestion, changing the box to a comment. This way it ought to still serve its intended purpose of communicating its points to anyone inclined to change the categorization. Thanks for your input, everyone. –Sommers ^(Talk) 16:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What about the possibility of the word legend? I'm not saying I'm right in this case, but am offering a suggestion. In my usage, I try to have one meaning each for three words: myth, an untrue story represented as true; legend, a story that may or may not be true and may or may not be represented as true; and fable, an untrue story that may or may not be true but is represented more for the "moral" that it teaches than for its possible factual correctness. (All three involve stories that are often, but not always, old.) I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but thought I'd mention what may be an option. President Lethe 17:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

See the archives, Abrahamic myth is appropriate. We've been through this already. Look up the definition of myth. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is taking an allegory too far. Most Rabbis acknowledge the Gilgamesh as the original source material and value the science that says a global flood is pure bunk. Has the fact that a global flood would kill all life in the oceans been explored? This article lacks the WikiPedia NPOV and emphasis on science. I am sad that this is singled out as the article of the day. People need to understand that for centuries Noah's Ark has been used as an obvious attack on science. Today it is religious fundamentalists' favorite method of attack upon evolution. And that many then neolithic cultures remembered the last Ice Age melts which caused gigantic local floods can not be taken as proof that the myth of the ark is true. - Sparky 18:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a story. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a really great article! I'd never seen so much ballanced information about Noah's Ark in one place! I think the people who say Wikipedia is unreliable are really closed-minded. Sarah crane 19:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The whole section titled "Questions Answered" seems to be inconsistent with the otherwise balanced and scholarly tone of this article. Does anyone else think it should be cut?

It was not in the original. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought much the same and am glad you have removed it. However, I think it is quite important that the "questions answered" should be re-inserted in the section about the literalists, although phrased in appropriate language this time.

Oops, forgot my signature. Polocrunch 21:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't even seen it. I'll have to go look through older edits to find it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

God never wrote anything. Writing is an invention of man. silly people. (unsigned comment by 208.200.248.31)

- keep taking the tablets ;) ...dave souza, talk 23:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The article says in the second paragraph:

Many Orthodox Jews and traditional Christians and Muslims reject this analysis, holding that the Ark story is true, that it has a single author (Moses), and that any perceived inadequacies can be rationally explained.

According to the Orthodox Jewish view, the auther of the Bible is not Moses, but God. This has to be changed somehow.--aishel 13:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way of removing the 'Moses' reference on the main page? I removed it from the article.--aishel 17:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

you chould change it to "(dictated to moses by god)" that's what I've heard happened anyway - jedi of redwall

The Orthodox Jewish view is but one view, and it seems that your take is different from that of some orthodox Jews I grew up with. For many people, the Pentateuch is considered/assumed/alleged to have been written (trabscribed?) by Moses (that's why in the Germanic and Scandanavian countries, the books of the Pentateuch are rendered as "First Book of Moses, Second Book of Moses, etc. -- in their own specific language of course). Personally, I think it was written by several people, although that does not matter to the article or to anything else. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that it was dictated by God to Moses, however, the way it is written now only shows that Moses was the one to write it. By leaving it as a 'single author' that lets the reader decide who that author was.--aishel 22:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, we'll leave Moses out (personally, I don't care either way), but if there's a backlash, it's going to go back in. Remember, you need to reach consensus (especially on potentially contentious changes) before making the edit. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

An article on Noah's Ark isn't the place for people to be deciding whether or not Moses wrote this or that, or whether God told Moses to write it, or if, in fact, the Easter Bunny was behind it all. Simply state the facts, which are as Jim62sch says: Moses is traditionally given credit for these works. Further questions can be referred to documentary hypothesis or similar. mdf 23:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Quote: The Ark that Noah built was at the time the fastest ship known to man. He was the first man to ever break the sound barrier, and his ship was perfect for catching the pirates that plagued the Mediterranean at the time. Noah was also famous for catching the white whale in Jules Verne's classic, Moby Dick. Someone want to remove that?

LOve it! Some of our vandals are really funny! Nevertheless they must all be caught and hung from the yardarm. PiCo 23:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to the last good featured article version. Most of the edits of the past 24 hours have been POV edits that have destroyed the article. While neither PiCo nor I feel that we WP:OWN the article, we did put too damned much time into it to see it ripped apart by a pack of rabid editors with their own POV's to stuff into an encyclopedic article. Additionally, no care was taken with the format and the last version before the revert looked like a 5th grade school project. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty new around here, so others have probably already discussed this, but... it seems like it would be a good idea to do a 24 hour freeze of featured articles while they are on the main page, especially for something so controversial. Presumably what made this article noteworthy in the first place was the ability to give a fair treatment to a subject that can arouse such passions and name-calling. Would it be a violation of Wikiology if at the end of today one of the folks who turned this into a feature article reverted to eliminate today's madness? - Bert 171.159.64.10 22:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That was why I reverted, and I think a few other people are keeping an eye on the page. Personally, I think you bring up a really good point -- lock-down featured articles for the 24-hour period they are on the front page.

Perhaps you might want to go to this page, [Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)], and make the suggestion and see where it goes. It might be a good way to get used to the craziness in the Wiki-world. :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's annoying to have people vandalize featured articles but the ability to edit them is still a good showcasing of Wikipedia's features for those who come here for the first time. I've seen featured articles improved heavily under the scrutiny of others. Of course, if a majority of the edits are just vandalism, we might try a semi-protection (only lets users with accounts edit, cuts down on anonymous drive-by vandalism). --Fastfission 22:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The point of Wikipedia is to allow people to easily create, expand, and improve articles to high quality, not turn high quality articles into crap. While there is always room for improvement, that rarely occurs for featured articles (even if it could easily occur; people are more likely to turn it back into crap than to take the steps to actually improve it). The point of Wikipedia is not to show off the wiki software; it's to create a useful encyclopedia. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-28 23:21

All these poeple saying Noah's ark isn't real are just being stupid. Of course it happened. The Bible says so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rookwood (talk • contribs)

While some people take the Bible literally, the Bible is possibly only a collection of metaphorical stories, not to be taken literally. Take, for example, the story of Adam and Eve. This story could not have happened in the literal sense, as material evidence supports evolution and not the sudden creation of man from dust. The story is meant to represent many things, such as the stages of growing, the tendency of Man to lie or cheat, &c. Likewise, the story of Noah's Ark could or could not have happened. It could have a basis in fact, but, again, the lack of evidence proves otherwise. The silt deposited by a worldwide flood has not been found. The flood, if it ever occurred, would probably have been limited only to the Middle East. Mahk Twen 21:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter for the purposes of this article? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Rookwood, your faith m ay require you to believe the literal truth of the Bible in its every word. Mine does not. There are sufficient different translations and interpretations that to take any word of the Bible as literal received truth is the route to madness as you try to reconcile the irreconcilable. It is quite possible that there wa s agreat flood, and that a man took his animals on a boat and survived, but the idea of the entire Earth being purged is neither plausible nor an essential plank of Christianity - many other stories are interpreted as allegorical, after all. Did it really happen? Maybe. Did it happen in the literal sense of the whole of life on Earth being wiped out with that one family saved? Well, you can believe that if you like, but don't expect many others, Christian or not, to agree. Just zis Guy you know? 22:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, these conversions canot both be right. "1413 cubic feet (40,000 m³), a displacement nearly equal to that of the Titanic, and total floor space of around 96,000 ft² (8,900 m²)" &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW: displacement is measured in tons of water, not usually (if ever) volume. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Doing sums was never my strong point. I think the cubic metres measurement was the original here, and I used an on-line converter to produce an Imperial equivalent. The comparison of the Ark to the Titanic (without actual figures) was in my original source, which will be linked via the footnotes. I'll check this out. PiCo 23:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I just fixed this. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, at sea level, one cubic meter of water is one metric ton of water. President Lethe 22:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Distilled water. Seawater is denser. Added: Besides, the original didn't give a figure. It gave volume (which is never the same as displacement) and asserted a comparison with the Titanic, which happened to be incorrect. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually don't have a large interest in this. I only felt like making a point about the easy conversion of masses and volumes of fresh water at sea level in the metric system. :-) I considered salt water before posting, and decided to leave it out. Also, if these supposed floodwaters were somehow separate from the seas (I'm not saying they were; I'm just getting into little technicalities), and the floodwaters came from rain, then they would not have been salt water. Also, the volume contained by a submarine vessel with infinitely thin skin is the same as the volume of water displaced by that sub when it's submerged. Anyway, maybe I should be quiet, since I'm not deeply interested. President Lethe 00:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, the water of Noah's flood was all fresh water. The "fountains of the deep" were a fresh-water ocean that the ancient Sumerians and Babylonians believed underlay the earth and gave rise to rivers etc. They may have believed this partly because of the obvious evidence of springs and so on, but also (presumably) because off Bahrain, which was their Dilmun, or earthly paradise, there were and still are springs of fresh water bubbling up from the sea floor. And if the bird of paradise was indeed forever in flight inside the ark, lacking legs to perch with, should its weight be counted or not? PiCo 00:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been said, but I don't believe it's true. I don't recall any mention of the "fountains of the deep" in either the Babylonian or the Sumerian flood stories. Even if there were, I don't recall the Abzu ever being characterized as fresh or salt water. But even if it were true, a worldwide flood would necessarily connect with the oceans. The water, while more dilute, would certainly not be fresh even not counting the added dissolved minerals from all the drowned land. Either way, it's more dense than pure water.

President Lethe, yes it's an easy conversion, but displacement is always given as a weight because 1) it's independent of whether the water is fresh or salt and 2) it's really a measure of force, not volume. (Typically given in metric tons in SI since mass units are conventionally used as weight units.) You're right about submarines, but surface ships typically prefer the waterline to be below the weather deck. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence of the Chinese flood legend says...

"This story, along with the many other flood stories from cultures around the world, proves that the flood with Noah's ark really did take place."

Apparently the author is trying to make the point that the multiplicity and synergy of similar stories makes it more likely that the story is true. This needs to be better integrated into the article. Khatores 00:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The whole paragraph is not substantiated by erputable scholarship and will be removed. Eventually. PiCo 00:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The rendering of Biblical inerrancy in the article (..."[the Bible] does not deliberately mislead..."} is in sharp contrast to all, or virtually all, of the official positions of denominations which hold inerrancy as a belief. Kindly refrain from inserting subtle theological distinctions which are fundamentally misleading and at odds with the public statements of these denominations...Kenosis 00:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to read up on what the major denominations actually say. The conservative Protestant/Evangelical position in the US was set out in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978). It says that, while the bible is without error, primacy must be given to seeking the intention of each text. Thus when the bible says, "And all the trees of the field shall clap their hands" (Isaiah 55:12), we are not asked to believe that the trees had hands - in other words, the churches recognised that the bible uses poetic and other figurative language. The position of the Roman Catholic church is that the megesterium of the Church, appointed by Christ (i.e., the pope and bishops) have authority to interprept scripture in order to guide faith and morals - in other words, while the bible is without error, it must be interpretted in order to be understood correctly. The Orthodox churches take a similar view, but without according special authority to the Roman pope (a word which, in the Eastern churches, simply means priest).

In short, the attempted insertion that the bible "is without error" is a gross oversimplification, and does not reflect the views of any of the mainstream denominations.

Of course, you're welcome to produce evidence to the contrary. PiCo 00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I see no citation or evidence whatsoever for that very arbirary POV, which renders the term "inerrancy" meaningless. It is the equivalent of saying "it could be wrong, but if so [the writers] didn't do it on purpose." That is not by the wildest stretch of imagination what major denominations today hold publicly, nor is it the position of the Chicago statement. What is typical is for a denomination today to make distinctions between matters of importance on redemption, faith and salvation as distinguished from issues of literal historical fact.. You already clarified translation issues to some extent in the clause that follows the phrase at issue here...Kenosis 01:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You say my wording implies that the bible might be wrong but not on purpose. Not quite. What it's meant to mean is that the confusions and uncertainties which are undeniably in the bible, including the Ark story, are interpreted by those who believe in biblical literalism as being matters capable of eluciadation, and not as evidence that the bible is mistaken. To say that biblical inerrantists believe that the bible is without error (totally, absolutely, no qualifications) is a misrepersentatoin of their position - point out to them that there seem to be two versoins of how many animals were on the Ark, and they'll be quite unfazed, and simply tell you that the text needs interpretation. Your version sets up a strawman definition that they can easily knock down. PiCo 01:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I see not one citation or source for this POV, and even if there were, it is not the representative position of major denominations today. If you mean to say " the bible is without error, but it must be interpreted in order to be understood correctly," then say it...Kenosis 01:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That is what I want to say, but that's too many words. My "not deliberately misleading" is intended to get that meaning across. PiCo

Kenosis's wording seems better even if it is a bit longer. "not deliberately misleading" is too easily misinterpreted. JoshuaZ 01:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

PiCo, please go ahead and say what you mean in order to summarize the dominant position today. It is actually a few less words, because it can be woven directly into the interpretation clause that follows, if brevity is your objective. Take care...Kenosis 01:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to work Kenosis's suggestion into the text. Please feel free to revert if you don't think it's useful and clear - I'll accept the consensus here, which seems to be that I'm making a theological mountain out of linguistic molehill. PiCo 01:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not one to pick a fight, but PiCo, I find it interesting that you find it so out of place to mention that Ararat was once located in Armenia proper. You may not realize that the notion of the Armenia is already mentioned twice in the article as it stands; unfortunately, given that there is nothing to set the stage for these mentions, the unfamiliar reader will likely not understand why they even exist. I am not going to make an addition to the article in this vein because apparently such an addition is not doing me credit, but I still firmly believe that in other contexts when the subject is what has become the national symbol of a nation, that fact is at the very least worthy of a mention. --DanielNuyu 05:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - I simply take it for granted that everyone shares my knowledge of historical geography. (If you'd like a brief description of the changing borders of Angevin France and the resulting regional variations in the pronunciation of the phoneme /ch/, I'm your man). But put it in the main body of the article, not in the summary section, ok? PiCo 07:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh what the hell, put it in the intro. PiCo 07:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. --DanielNuyu 08:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well Nationalism sure never caused a war or fifty. ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

While it is certainly true that the Book of Genesis in the Christian Bible corresponds exactly to the book named "Bereshit" in the Hebrew Bible, I think it is incorrect to say that the story of the Ark is "contained in the Hebrew Bible's book of Genesis, chapters 6 to 9." If you are going to reference the Hebrew Bible, call it "Bereshit," but because that name is lesser-known, I think it is better to say it is "contained in the Christian Bible's book of Genesis," or better still, "contained in the Bible's book of Genesis," since it is in both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible. I'd change it myself, but I'd rather not have to fight down the objections, so I'm explaining it instead. --Cromwellt|Talk 15:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point. I'll change it to "the biblical book of Genesis". PiCo 22:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone's already done it. PiCo 22:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no discrepancy in the Bible as to the length of the flood. Genesis 7:17 tells how long the water kept rising (40 days). Genesis 7:24 tells how long the water stayed at its peak level, no longer rising, before it receded (150 days). Nicholasjc2000 16:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And where does the article say there was? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

At the point where these two verses are referenced, the article is explaining the thinking behind the documentary hypothesis - 19th century scholars say a confusion between these two verses (and others), and based the hypothesis on their attempts to explain this. Please be clear that the article isn't saying the confusion is there - it's just saying that the scholars believed it was. Other explanatoins are of course possible, such as the one you give here. But the article isn't trying to reconcile these two verses, or even saying that the confusion is real: it's just explaining the thinking behind the documentary hypothesis. (I changed your edit back to something like the original because what you put here made nonsense of the point the paragraph is making). PiCo 00:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I didn't understand it either. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"The 87 verses of the Ark narrative leave an impression of occasional confusion"

I changed this to "Some of the 87 verses of the Ark narrative contradict each other". This was reverted apparently to maintain a neutral point of view. While they most definately do leave an impression of occasional confusion, it is far more accurate to say that they contradict each other.

• One pair of animals directly contradicts seven pairs.
• Forty days directly contradicts 150 days.

These are by definition contradictions, they cannot both be true. The current phrase, "leave an impression of occasional confusion", is far less neutral. It infers that these are not serious contradictions. They don't just leave an impression of occasional confusion, they are occasional confusion, or more preceisly, occasional contradiction. Kernow 22:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many apologists will tell you otherwise about these sorts of issues. For example, they will claim that it rained for 40 days and the water stuck around for 150, which is in fact textually consistent. It might therefore be best to say something like "Modern Biblical scholars see the text as full of contradictions" (that's a bit wordy, can someone else give a better wording?) or something like that. However, to say there are contradictoins straight out would seem to violate NPOV. JoshuaZ 22:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ has it pretty much right. But when writing this I had in mind 19th century scholars rather than modern ones - I was trying to explain why those early scholars felt that something needed explaining. To say that early scholars saw contradictions is perfectly NPOV, especially if citations can me given. Maybe someone else could word something. PiCo 22:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If no one objects, this talk page is about due for another archiving. JoshuaZ 01:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I object. Its not due; its over-due. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Please discuss the article's scope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 'By the 19th century, the discoveries of geologists, archaeologists and biblical scholars had led most scientists[3][4][5] and many Christians to abandon a literal interpretation of the Ark story,'
• 'By the 17th century, it was becoming necessary to reconcile the exploration of the New World and increased awareness of the global distribution of species with the older belief that all life had sprung from a single point of origin on the slopes of Mount Ararat.'
• 'Incorporating the full range of animal diversity into the Ark story was becoming increasingly difficult,[5] and by the middle of the 18th century few natural historians could justify a literal interpretation of the Noah's Ark narrative.'
• 'Scientific geology had a profound impact on attitudes towards the Biblical Flood and Ark story: without the support of the Biblical chronology, which placed the Creation and the Flood and Ark very precisely in history, the historicity of the Ark itself was undermined.'
• 'As early as the 19th century the view that the flood was merely local and did not cover the earth was well established within mainstream Christianity.' --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Or should they be SUMMARY sequence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 'By the 19th century, the discoveries of geologists, archaeologists and biblical scholars had led most scientists[3][4][5] and many Christians to abandon a literal interpretation of the Ark story,'
• 'By the 17th century, it was becoming necessary to reconcile the exploration of the New World and increased awareness of the global distribution of species with the older belief that all life had sprung from a single point of origin on the slopes of Mount Ararat.'
• 'Incorporating the full range of animal diversity into the Ark story was becoming increasingly difficult,[5] and by the middle of the 18th century few natural historians could justify a literal interpretation of the Noah's Ark narrative.'
• 'Scientific geology had a profound impact on attitudes towards the Biblical Flood and Ark story: without the support of the Biblical chronology, which placed the Creation and the Flood and Ark very precisely in history, the historicity of the Ark itself was undermined.'
• 'As early as the 19th century the view that the flood was merely local and did not cover the earth was well established within mainstream Christianity.'
• 'Notwithstanding diligent search, I have been unable to discover that the universality of the Deluge has any defender left, at least among those who have so far mastered the rudiments of natural knowledge as to be able to appreciate the weight of evidence against it.'
• 'It would have been about 450ft long, and experts say it would have broken apart.'
• 'the odds are that the technology of the time and the reputed material (gopher wood or shittim wood = ?acacia) would have made such a structure too flimsy for the purpose.'
• 'the construction of the Ark, given the conditions stated in the Bible, would probably have been impossible.'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not my agenda or my attempt to own it, I'd say if anyone's been doing that: it's you with your bizarre view of what this article must refer to. You've (I assume) got no worries about the article talking about the story, Noah, what biblical scholars think the story means, animal waste management, history of interpretation of the STORY etc. But use this idea that the article is "just about the ark" to chop whatever you don't want in there (while leaving everything else in there). Your comment about mythology is just a flat out lie: you chop out the reference in your "contributions" (e.g. reverting) [3]. So do I have your support to improve the article by putting mention of mythology in the article? You know, like EVERY OTHER story of this type under the banner of "deluge MYTHOLOGY". Maybe you can get pico to take their finger off the revert button also.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Let the facts speak for themselves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tjbergsma: that policy has got nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Read this instead [4]

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

Nathan wrote: "Tjbergsma: that policy has got nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Read this instead [5] "

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

Here is another cut and paste of Wikipedia policy:

"Words that label

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

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

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

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

[Edit conflict]² In passing, NathanLee is completely correct here. The term "myth" is simply not synonymous with "fiction" and is certainly not used in relevant sources in this way. Just because many people choose to interpret the term in this way doesn't mean that we should (there are similar misuses of "theory" in the context of science topics but, again, we stick to the formal use). --PLUMBAGO 16:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or do you prefer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Wikipedia:WTA#Myth_and_legend,

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

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

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

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