Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:26, 13 December 2008

Template:Medcabbox

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Noah's Ark article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	Noah's Ark is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 12, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bible This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Noah's Ark. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Noah's Ark at the Reference desk.

New section proposal

The following is my revised suggestion for a section entitled 'The Ark In Current Christian Interpretation'. It includes notable Biblical Literalist and Fundamentalist Interpretations, notable non-literalist and liberal interpretations, notable discussions over historicity, and the search for the Ark.

The Ark In Current Christian Interpretation

The Genesis Ark narrative continues to hold a significant place within the Christian community, though there exists a broad spectrum of interpretations of the narrative (from literal to allegorical), as with the Genesis creation account.

Biblical Literalist and Fundamentalist Interpretations

Biblical literalists and Fundamentalists tend to trust in traditions regarding the composition of the Bible and generally accept the traditional belief that the Ark narrative was written by Moses some time between the 16th century BC and late 13th century BC and describes a real event which took place in the 4th or 3rd millennium before Christ.

Biblical literalists explain apparent contradiction in the Ark narrative as the result of the stylistic conventions adopted by an ancient text: thus the confusion over whether Noah took seven pairs or only one pair of each clean animal into the Ark is explained as resulting from the author (Moses) first introducing the subject in general terms—seven pairs of clean animals—and then later, with much repetition, specifying that these animals entered the Ark in twos. Literalists see nothing puzzling in the reference to a raven flying over the Flood for two weeks—it could have rested on carrion floating on the waters—nor do they see any sign of alternative endings.

Liberal and Non-Fundamentalist Interpretations

Non-Fundamentalist and Liberal Christians typically view the Ark and flood narrative very differently to Biblical literalists and Fundamentalists. As early as the 19th century the view that the flood was merely local and did not cover the earth was well established within mainstream Christianity. This interpretation remains popular and important among more liberal Christians who retain a belief in the historicity of the Ark and the flood narrative as it is commonly used to explain how the Ark could have carried all the animal life necessary, and how it could have survived the flood itself.

Doublets and apparent contradictions in the text are typically explained by non-Fundamentalist Christians as the product of standard Hebrew literary forms., whilst the sending of the raven and dove are understood as historical references to authentic ancient nautical practice.

More liberal Christians such as the Universalist Church see the Ark narrative as essentially allegorical and non-historical.

Historicity

Apart from questions of date, authorship, and textual integrity, a number of subjects concerning the historicity of the Ark narrative are typically debated among Christians and skeptics. The following section sets out some of the more commonly discussed topics:

• Seaworthiness: Biblical literalist Websites seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m) long. This is considerably larger than the schooner Wyoming, at 329 feet the largest timber-hulled vessel built in modern times. The Wyoming and similar ships of her class suffered chronic leaking, warping, and hull separation due to hogging and sagging, despite reinforcement with iron bracing. "The construction and use histories of these ships indicated that they were already pushing or had exceeded the practical limits for the size of wooden ships". In response to the claim that the Ark had to be seaworthy, literalist websites cite various studies which, in their view, indicate that Noah's Ark was seaworthy, including a Korean paper demonstrating that the dimensions, shape, and structural materials of the Ark are realistic and that the Ark 'had a superior level of safety in high winds and waves compared with the other hull forms studied'. In this regard, some literalist apologists cite the Chinese Ming Dynasty 'Treasure ships', or 'baochuan' (the largest of which are claimed to be 400 to 600 ft long), as examples of large seagoing wooden vessels: however, the actual size of these ships is disputed, and one explanation for their size is that the largest Treasure Ships were merely used by the Emperor and imperial bureaucrats to travel along the relatively calm Yangtze river. Non-Fundamentalist apologists claim that the Flood was merely a local phenomenon confined to Mesopotamia, and hence the Ark would not have needed to survive wave action on a worldwide ocean.

• Practicality: Could the Ark have been constructed from timber as described in the Genesis narrative, and still supported its own weight?Were the technology and materials available to Noah to make the Ark's construction possible? Ark-believers claim that there is ample evidence for ancient timber vessels comparable in size and construction to the Ark: Sir Walter Raleigh was among the first to argue that the Ark was smaller than the Syracusia, a cargo ship built in the 3rd century BCE during the reign of Hiero II of Syracuse (180 feet in length), and the giant warship Tessarakonteres built by Ptolemy IV Philopater. The Tessarakonteres (420 feet long, and recognized as a historical vessel by standard historical authorities, remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Flood-apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals. Other ancient ships commonly used as points of comparison by modern Ark apologists are the giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut (206-311 ft), the Thalamegos (377 ft), Caligula's Giant Ship (341 ft), and Caligula's Nemi Ships (229 ft), the historicity of which is accepted by standard historical authorities.

• Capacity and logistics: According to Ark dimensions commonly accepted by Biblical literalists, the Ark would have had a gross volume of about 1.5 million cubic feet (40,000 m³), a displacement a little less than half that of the Titanic at about 22,000 tons, and total floor space of around 100,000 square feet (9,300 m²). The question of whether it could have carried two (or more) specimens of the various species (including those now extinct), plus food and fresh water, is a matter of much debate, even bitter dispute, between Biblical literalists and their opponents. While some Biblical literalists hold that the Ark could have held all known species, a more common position today is that the Ark contained "kinds" rather than species—for instance, a male and female of the cat "kind" rather than representatives of tigers, lions, cougars, etc. The many questions associated with a Biblical literalist interpretation include whether eight humans could have cared for the animals while also sailing the Ark, how the special dietary needs of some of the more exotic animals could have been catered for, how the creatures could have been prevented from preying on each other, questions of lighting, ventilation, and temperature control, hibernation, the survival and germination of seeds, the position of freshwater and saltwater fish, the question of what the animals would have eaten immediately after leaving the Ark, how they traveled (or were gathered) from all over the world to board the Ark and how they could have returned to their far-flung habitats across the Earth's bare, flood-devastated terrain, and how two or a few members of a species could have provided enough genetic variety to avoid inbreeding and reconstitute a healthy population. The numerous Biblical literalist websites, while agreeing that none of these problems is insurmountable, give varying answers on how to resolve them.

References

1. Literalists and Fundamentalists rely on the internal biblical chronology to count backwards from the relatively secure dates in the historical books (largely the book of Kings, where events such as the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians can be verified from non-biblical sources) to the genealogies contained in Genesis 5 and 11. Archbishop Ussher, using this method in the 17th century, arrived at 2349 BC, and this date still has acceptance among many. A more recent Christian fundamentalist scholar, Gerhard F. Hasel, summarising the current state of thought in the light of the various Biblical manuscripts (the Masoretic text in Hebrew, various manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint), and differences of opinion over their correct interpretation, demonstrated that this method of analysis can date the flood only within a range between 3402 and 2462 BC.Hasel, GF (1980). "THE MEANING OF THE CHRONOGENEALOGIES OF GENESIS 5 AND 11". Origins. 7 (2): 53–70. Retrieved 2007-06-27. Non-Fundamentalist, non-literalist and liberal Christian opinions, based on different sources and methodologies, lead to dates outside even this bracket—the deuterocanonical Book of Jubilees, for example, providing a date equivalent to 2309 BC.
2. Several Creationist websites give encyclopedic answers to the many questions asked about the Ark: see, for example, Trueorigin.org, "Problems with a Global Flood?", and links in the See Also section of this article.
3. '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. For example, when I turned to the "Speaker's Bible," published under the sanction of high Anglican authority, I found the following judicial and judicious deliverance, the skilful wording of which may adorn, but does not hide, the completeness of the surrender of the old teaching', Thomas Huxley, 'The Lights of the Church and the Light of Science', Collected Essays, volume 4, pages 217-218 (1890)
4. Hugh Ross, The Waters Of The Flood'
5. Rich Deem, 'The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local'
6. 'The Genesis Flood'
7. 'So, the animal species rescued via the ark were nephesh, particularly those in the category of basar, living within the reach of the flood's devastation. They may have numbered in the hundreds and probably did not exceed a few thousand. The ark, then, would have been adequate to house them and their food, and eight people could have cared for them, as well as for themselves, for many months', Hugh Ross, Let Us Reason: Noah's Floating Zoo
8. The Genesis Flood
9. MacGrath, James F, Introduction To The Torah'
10. Kitchen, Kenneth, 'The Old Testament in its Context: 1 From the Origins to the Eve of the Exodus', Theological Students' Fellowship Bulletin 59, Spring 1971
11. Bromiley, Geoffrey W (editor), International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised edition, Eerdmans:1979
12. Keener, Craig S (editor), The Bible Background Commentary-NT, International Varsity Press:1993
13. Marcus, David, 'The Mission of The Raven (Gen. 8:7)', Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society, 29:2002
14. Reverend Kathleen McTigue, 'Noah's Ark For Grownups', February 23, 2003
15. How BIG was Noah's Ark?
16. Noah's Ark
17. Isaak, Mark, 'Problems with a Global Flood', second edition, 1998
18. Gould, R (2001). "Asia's Undersea Archeology". Public Broadcasting System. Retrieved 2007-06-27.
19. Yes, Noah did build an Ark!
20. S.W. Hong, S.S. Na, B.S. Hyun, S.Y. Hong, D.S. Gong, K.J. Kang, S.H. Suh, K.H. Lee, and Y.G. Je, 'Safety Investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway', Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 8(1):26–35, 1994
21. NOAH'S ARK SAFETY PAPER
22. Ark
23. Compare Noah's Ark
24. CH508: Chinese treasure ships and Noah's ark
25. Ancient Chinese Explorers, Evan Hadingham, Sultan's Lost Treasures, NOVA, PBS Television
26. Asia's Undersea Archeology, Richard Gould, NOVA, PBS Television article
27. [http://www.travel-silkroad.com/english/marine/ZhengHe.htm The Archaeological Researches into Zheng He's Treasure Ships
28. The Genesis Flood
29. Did Noah Really Build An Ark? 'It would have been about 450ft long, and experts say it would have broken apart'
30. Noah's Ark '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'
31. The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark, 'Many writers (e.g., Kenneth Feder, Frauds, Myths, and Mysticism, Mayfield, 1990) point out that the construction of the Ark, given the conditions stated in the Bible, would probably have been impossible'
32. The large ships of antiquity
33. 'For measuring the ark by the vulgar cubit, it did not exceed the capacity of that vessel built by Hiero of Syracuse, or the ship of Ptolemy Philo-pater', Raleigh, Sir Walter, 'The History of the World', Book 1, in 'The Works of Sir Walter Ralegh, Kt', volume II, 1829, page 213
34. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Lionel Casson 1994
35. The Age of the Supergalleys, Chapter 7 of Ships and Seafaring in Ancient Times, Lionel Casson, University of Texas Press; 1st University edition, March 1994 ISBN-10: 029271162X.
36. 'Ancient History boasts of many large vessels, which prove the possibility of the size of Noah's Ark… PLUTARCH, in his life of DEMETRIUS, relates that PTOLOMEY PHILOPATER constructed a galley, of the same length, with forty ranges or heights of oars, navigated by four hundred sailors, and four thousand galley slaves, which could contain three thousand fighting men on its decks', Radford, William, 'On the construction of the Ark, as adapted to the naval architecture of the present day, &c.', 1840, pages 21-22
37. 'Mr. A. HENDERSON has communicated to the Institution of Civil Engineers a paper on "Ocean Steamers," wherein he made some calculations respecting the comparative bulk of the most famous vessels of antiquity and of our own times. Thus, a ship constructed by Ptolemus Philopater was 420 feet long, 56 broad, and 72 high from the keel to the prow, and it was manned by 4000 rowers, 400 servants, and 2820 marines. It was estimated, therefore, that this vessel had a tonnage of 6445 tons, builder's measurement, and an external bulk of 830,700 cubic feet. Noah's ark would have a tonnage of 11,905, and a bulk of 1,580,000 cubic feet', Timbs, John, 'The Year-book of Facts in Science and Art', 1854, page 42
38. Van Rensselaer, Cortlandt (editor), 'A ship was constructed for Ptolemy Philopater, which was 420 feet long, 56 feet broad, and 72 feet deep, and of 6,445 tons burthen', The Presbyterian Magazine, volume IV, 1854, page 93
39. 'Very large vessels — their seaworthiness.', 'By old law, the tonnage of Noah's Ark was 11,905 tons, and calculated on this estimate, her external bulk would be about 1,580,277 cubic feet ; the ship built 2000 years ago at Alexandria, by Ptolemaens Philopater, 6445 tons', Report Of The Twenty-Fourth Meeting Of The British Association For The Advancement Of Science', 1855, page 154
40. Impossible For Ancients
41. The Genesis Flood
42. 'It is estimated that the obelisk barge may have been over ninety-five metres in length and thirty-two metres wide', Technology along the Nile
43. ' was over 300 feet long, Casson, Lionel, 'Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World', 1995, page 342
44. 'Athenaios does not indicate his sources for the second ship, but it must have been an eye-witness or a person who obtained measurements and other details from a contemporary', Sarton, George, 'Hellenistic Science and Culture in the Last Three Centuries B.C.', 1993, page 121
45. 'Similar techniques were used in the gigantic Lake Nemi ships of the early first century AD', McGrail, Sean, 'Boats of the World: From the Stone Age to Medieval Times', 2004, page 157
46. 'Archaeology Italian archaeologists and engineers drain Lake Nemi near Rome to recover two giant barges that had been built by Roman emperor Caligula', Bunch, Bryan and Hellemans, Alexander, 'The History of Science and Technology', 2004, page 513
47. 'Atop one of these was erected a lighthouse that used as its foundation the giant ship that had been built to transport the obelisk of Heliopolis from Egypt to Rome under the reign of Caligula', Aldrete, Gregory, 'Daily Life in the Roman City: Rome, Pompeii, and Ostia', 2004, page 206
48. Mendez, AC. "How Big was Noah's Ark". biblestudy.org. Retrieved 2007-06-27. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
49. Sarfati, J (2007). "Variation and natural selection versus evolution". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 2007-06-27. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

Conflict of Interest: Christian Skeptic

As I have had an edit removed out of the article by a self confessed publisher of creation journal entries. If someone could put it back as I do not wish to violate 3RR even though this user has a clear conflict of interest and some fringe theories that they appear to want edit into wikipedia. The edit I made was to fit the above discussion. This user also appears to regard the BBC as not a referenceable organisation because they have (claimed) "a clear anti-christian bias", the BBC is most definitely able to be used as a citation. From the user's homepage: "That all life forms were created some 6000 years ago during the creation week; And that there was a global cataclysm. Both the creation and the Flood are established fact within which science is done. They are not hypotheses to be falsified by the scientific method." Which is a completely niche view and completely at odds with science and (as this article suggests) even at odds with the majority of religious followers. NathanLee (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have myself reverted edits by Christian Skeptic, as they have appeared blatantly motivated. I keep a close eye on him specifically because of that conflict of interest. But let's not forget about your conflict of interest. I have objected to your edit because it drags the article offtopic right in the middle of the introduction. In case you're unaware, geology proves nothing about whether the Ark was fictional. Geology proves that there was no global flood. It says nothing about the Ark. Your inability to distinguish between the two subjects is just one of the issues causing you problems with the content of this article. The BBC article does say that 'experts' believe the Ark itself was impractical ('It would have been about 450ft long, and experts say it would have broken apart'), and that reference definitely belongs in this article. But as I have already pointed out, that reference is already in this article, and I know because I was the one who put it there.

Your history of editing this article demonstrates that you have no interest in contributing any material relevant to the Ark, all you want to talk about is the flood. You have contributed nothing about the Ark whatsoever. You have repeatedly attempted to increase the amount of weight given to the flood in this article. You have repeatedly ignored the fact that the flood receives due weight in this article, including an entire section on how post-Renaissance science demonstrated there was no global flood, and how by the 19th century most scientists and Christians had abandoned the literal interpretation of the flood. Your only interest is in posting references which prove there was no global flood. That's fine, but it doesn't belong here. For this reason I have invited you to go and edit the relevant page, which is on Noah's flood. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan boi, my understand is that this article is not about a mythological vessel, it is about the myth in its entirety. Just would like to seek clarification on that. I do agree that Deluge (mythology) is the appropriate place to discuss theological and scientific merits of a global flood - but material pertainly directly to the flood as it appears in the Noah story does rightly belong here for the moment. The deluge article points readers to here as the "main article" for teh Noah's ark (and flood) story.--ZayZayEM (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is about a mythological vessel. It's about the mythological vessel called 'Noah's Ark'. This is conveyed to the reader by means of the article title, which is 'Noah's Ark'. I agree that material pertaining to the flood does belong in here. Let me make something clear to you. There is already an abundance of material pertaining to the flood in this article. It is utterly bizarre that pepole are arguing for an inclusion of the flood in this article, when this article already includes plenty of material on the flood. Are people just not reading the article? The deluge article points readers here only because there is no separate article on the Genesis deluge. That is not an excuse for dumping anything and everything on the flood, in this article. It's a reason why we need a separate article on the flood, as I have argued repeatedly. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There is an abundance of material relating to ships. This needs to be about the story, that includes flood, animals, Noah etc. Actually: that IS what the article is about if you just stop using this excuse to remove something that disagrees with the idea that the bible is giving a factual view of history rather than just a legendary/mythical story. NathanLee (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Article scope

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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, 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)

Forking

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 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, 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) . 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)

Some general comments

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Introduction

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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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

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[REDACTED] 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 "

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] policies at all.

I'll ask AGAIN: Christian mythology, Greek mythology: you appear to be saying that they are not allowed on[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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)

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 Misplaced Pages.--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 "" 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. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] 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". Misplaced Pages 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)

Space in the Ark?

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)

Ridiculous reverts over one accurate word

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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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[REDACTED] 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..."" -- Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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[REDACTED] policies: WP:NPOV, WP:MORALIZE, WP:WORDS, and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Clearly, binding arbitration is required

This same identical debate has reared its ugly head so often for the past 3 years, that I fear binding arbitration should be required to determine if we as a project are going to distinguish between the living, significant religions and dead mythologies, like other major encyclopedias, or if we are going to lump them all in together as "mythology" like a propaganda tool. There is a continual and persistent effort of a few editors to label the Old Testament, and the scriptures of various and select other world religions, as "mythology" - despite the fact that many find this term offensive and would rather see a more neutral-sounding term in its place. The history of the word "mythology" amply proves that aside from describing dead religions, it is also used to attack living religions. They will not listen to any number of other editors who plead with them to be more reasonable; they are convinced that no perspective other than their own could be "neutral", and are uninterested in compromise, and are seemingly incapable of seeing beyond the end of their noses and realizing that different belief systems exist other than their own.

WIKIPEDIA MUST REMAIN NEUTRAL ON THE SUBJECT OF RELIGION AND STRICTLY REPORT ON WHAT PEOPLE TODAY ACTUALLY DO BELIEVE, NOT TRY TO "INFLUENCE" THEIR BELIEFS IN VIOLATION OF EVERY POLICY -- as the very userpages of "TeapotGeorge" and other editors make clear they wish to do, throwing their own neutrality and impartiality right out the window with personal templates blatantly calling for the demise of all religion. Many are those who would hijack the project and make it attack one set of beliefs while endorsing someone else's set of beliefs; some editors are bold enough to state that this is their goal on their own userpages, and should not be believed when they say they are "neutral". PLEASE let us take this to arb-com. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that you seem to be judging other peoples edits based on their world view, and not on the quality of the edit. If this is a three year issue, have you considered that the problem might be on your end? Either a suggested edit should be made, or it shouldn't, and that should be independent of the person suggesting it. You demand neutrality, but seek to distinguish between sets of articles based on your own or other peoples beliefs. There is no dispute that the word mythology is correct and proper, and yet you claim personal offence and seek to censor it's usage here. Can censorship based on personal offence be justified using Misplaced Pages's policies? I doubt it. Ben (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not "personal" offense; it is simply offense to major significant worldviews. Voltaire was one of the first, in his attacks on the Church, to declare that the Bible was "mythology"; Robespierre enforced this viewpoint during the Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution. Despite their best efforts, the word of the Bible still represents a significant viewpoint today for many faiths, just as do the Quran, Book of Mormon, etc. How can it possibly be "neutral" for[REDACTED] to enforce the same thing that the French Revolution and the Communists did? This is pure foolishness. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages, Voltaire's FREE legacy ....? Ben (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us a reference or two on how the word is of "offense to major significant worldviews"? As far as I can see it can only be of offense to literal biblical creationists who don't know what "mythology" means (the definition has been stated time and time again and is in the myth box). I'll remind you that it is VERY MUCH[REDACTED] policy to not censor and that "argument ad populum" is a fallacious (nonsense) argument. That's what you're asking for (e.g. don't say this because it offends me). Your views on this are very much a NICHE view. NathanLee (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it's already been determined that[REDACTED] must treat all religions equally, living and dead. It would be dishonest, impractical and illogical to treat them otherwise. Someone following something doesn't change the characteristics of the stories. Given this story is one of hundreds if not thousands of flood stories: why should it be treated differently just because you say so. NathanLee (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

One final point: Til Eulenspiegel, you don't even KNOW WHAT MYTHOLOGY MEANS. From your comments above you defined it as meaning the same as "dead religion" or some word which magically destroys faith which it is not under any definition I can find. Certainly doesn't match what the word means in academic, dictionary, media and encyclopaedic terms. NathanLee (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with everything you've just said and find it to be your own perspective and pov, not any actual policy; and I believe the opposing position has been made abundantly clear and shown to be rooted in NPOV policy - with plenty of quotes readily available from lots of historical (yet POV) sources utilising the very same offensive term ("mythology") specifically to attack and suppress living religions. So, because this 3-year debate shown no signs of conclusion, I am going to open up a medcab case some time in the near future as a preliminary to the arbitration process. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you show somewhere reliable that treats mythology as per your definition? The earlier "the pope said so" turned out false (as per my evidence below). So tell me, where is this "significant worldview" that the term "christian mythology" cannot exist? I've shown that the pope doesn't give a toss, that the article states a literal approach was abandoned a century ago (with references).. And you've got what exactly? Your own POV and a few other similarly un-referenced lackies on here that also just know where the revert button is. So please, where's the definition, evidence or something other than "because I say so". It only shows no conclusion because 3 years and it still hasn't penetrated your head, or else you've sustained ignorance of basic definitions choosing instead to keep edit warring over your POV (with no references). Without evidence your side of the argument is pure niche personal POV. NathanLee (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You're attacking a strawman, because I have never taken the position that "Christian mythology" cannot exist. My position has only been that "mythology" does not include any part of any living religion's sacred scriptures. We can't state that the Quran is myth either - let readers decide what definition to use for it. Of course there is plenty of indisputable "Christian mythology", but it is concerned with extra-Biblical legends, such as mostly what is in that category now, eg Sword of Saint Peter etc. We have no authority on behalf of any Church to declare a book like Genesis "uncanonical", when to date not even one Church has, as far as I know - they all describe it as "canonical" and their position that it is not "mythology" should be clear. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"mythology" does not include any part of any living religion's sacred scriptures.

That's absurd. I'd like to see a decent reference that provides this exclusion. Until you can do so, your position should not influence this article. Ben (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, why don't you try looking up the topic "mythology" in any mainstream encyclopedia??? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What? Like Britannica? "a symbolic narrative, usually of unknown origin and at least partly traditional, that ostensibly relates actual events and that is especially associated with religious belief. It is distinguished from symbolic behaviour (cult, ritual) and symbolic places or objects (temples, icons). As with all religious symbolism, there is no attempt to justify mythic narratives or even to render them plausible. Every myth presents itself as an authoritative, factual account, no matter how much the narrated events are at variance with natural law or ordinary experience. By extension from this primary religious meaning, the word myth may also be used more loosely to refer to an ideological belief when that belief is the object of a quasi-religious faith" Gee.. Sounds like it doesn't mean what you think it means. Care to provide a mainstream encyclopaedic reference to back up your *cough*made up*cough* definition. NathanLee (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, why don't you ... - Til Eulenspiegel.

Er, why don't you provide the reference, instead of asking others to find them for you? Ben (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And if you keep reading the EB article, does it discuss any living religions' scriptures as "mythology", or does it restrict itself to discussing what are mostly former religions of the past that virtually no-one today believes in or takes seriously?

You don't have far to go to find a plethora of views showing how duplicitous a term it is. Try here for starters, you get a whole buch all on one page: http://www.answers.com/topic/myth Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's obvious now that you can't provide any references to back your position, or else you would have stopped blindly pointing in random directions for us to look and simply provided some. To completely bury your argument though, I have this from a separate EB article (look up creation myth, I don't have a link sorry), Thus, for example, all theology and speculation concerning creation in the Christian community are based on the myth of creation in the biblical book of Genesis .. Ben (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Is that the best you can come up with when I give you a link? Blindly pretend that I haven't provided any references? Here it is again: http://www.answers.com/topic/myth It has everything you're looking for, including several RSS that say it implies falsehood, several that give no other meaning, a prominent quote saying "mythology means a religion that nobody believes in anymore", and finally, a[REDACTED] article stating: "A myth in popular use is something that is widely believed to be false. This usage, which is often pejorative, arose from labeling the religious myths and beliefs of other cultures as being incorrect, but it has spread to cover non-religious beliefs as well. Because of this usage, many people take offense when the religious narratives they believe to be true are called myths", There you have it from[REDACTED] - "many people take offense" - yet now you try to imply I am the only one, resorting to an ad hominem type of argument against one editor. Actually many editors beside myself have agreed that it is offensive. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You haven't provided any references, you quoted from a Misplaced Pages article that talks about common usage in instances like "urban myth". Did you miss the quote I gave above that says we're not supposed to use the common meaning? And how does your Misplaced Pages quote back up your claim that mythology and 'live' religions are mutually exclusive? Finally, as if Misplaced Pages is a reliable source. To that end, I've picked up a book on mythology here and I have another quote for you that directly addresses your claim: "Most readers would not be surprised to find that the biblical stories of creation and Eden are often considered mythological" - Mythology: Myths, Legends, & Fantasies, Janet Parker (Editor), ISBN: 0785817905, pg. 330. Stop playing the victim (where was the ad hominem by the way?), and stop wasting our time please. You've not only failed to provide a reliable source to back your claim, you've had sources presented to you that give a specific example of what you say doesn't happen (the EB article above) or say the exact opposite of your claim (the book above). Ben (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how you pick out one of the many meanings and then label it "offensive" (still no link on any reference that claims offence, which makes that "original research" on your behalf). I'll state again:[REDACTED] DOES NOT CENSOR lest of all for niche views. Not causing offence is impossible for one and not at all part of policy. e.g. Mohammed's happy snap showing up in the Mohammed page. Also: as far as SCIENCE and HISTORIC RECORD are concerned: this story is fiction. The school of thought that believes otherwise is "pseudoscience" which, by WP policy is specifically not to be represented as correct. NathanLee (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh and to clarify: that bit about a myth being a religion no one believes in is a quote of someone, NOT any of the definitions. NathanLee (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

So what? The fact remains that numerous editors (and published sources) have indicated it is offensive; you two seem utterly uninterested in any sort of compromise; thus it is time for dispute resolution. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC) Note: I have seen several dozens of editors over the past 3 years who agreed that calling the Bible or other religions' texts "myth(ology)" is needlessly offensive. I've just added a new tag to my own userpage to show where I stand. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. This argument seems to keep going. I do not even know where to begin reading to catch up on it. NathanLee: You are arguing two ways which makes me suspicious. First you say that "myth" can be either true or untrue, but then you clearly imply in some of your posts that why you want the word there because you really thing Noah's Ark is not true and you want others to think the same thing. The common usage of myth is "fictitious story," (also in many dictionaries and thesaurus' which have "non-fiction" as its antonym!) and no ugly Misplaced Pages box is going to change people's minds on that. Has Noah's Ark been proven beyond doubt to have been untrue? Not that I know of -- floods occur many places and ANE literature often used the word "world" to refer just to their known lands: In this way, Noah's Ark has never been proven to be untrue. In fact, the common theme of a great flood in different ANE literature lends credibility to its real historical occurrence in some shape or form.

Umm... I'm just in favor of not pushing any buttons and leaving it as it is. To me it simply is not necessary. Why put it there? Its presence only gives the gratification of feeling that "your side" won over the other side. It doesn't add any new information that people won't already have in their mind anyways, so: Why?. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 22:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the use of the term myth is correct no matter which way you look at it: scientific evidence suggests the story as written did not happen (I am evidence based so science is a measure of true for me, people just "believing" does not make something more or less true for me), but the definition that says that it is "a religious narrative which may or may not be true that some people believe to be true" is also correct.. And of course a myth may be based in part on true events or might be entirely true. I'm saying it works either way and is correct to label it as such in all cases (well.. except for your "dead religion" quote treated as definition). I'll refer you to the specific place that says "the common usage of myth is NOT to be assumed or used" here. It also mentions equal treatment so in other words: this exemption because it is believed by people does not mean we can't use it for christianity like we do for every other religion.

I would say that the idea that "just leave it there" is violated by you in your reverting. To me it is important because it adds clarity to the article because we are then aware that this is a mythological story (as opposed to say Battle of waterloo or similar.. NathanLee (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Tjbergsma, can you please comment on the proposal below your last edit in the above section? Thanks, Ben (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Pope john paul II's view on whether genesis should be taken literally

Here's a telling article on a book put out by Pope john paul II: Book provides pope's views on modern Bible scholarship And a bit of the article: Along the way, "Memory and Identity: Conversations at the Dawn of a Millennium" (Rizzoli) offers glimpses of the pope's attitudes toward modern biblical scholarship, leaning left on the Old Testament and leaning right on the New Testament.

In the Old Testament, Chapter 2 of Genesis is "the work of the Jahwist redactor," the pope tells us. ("Redactor" is a fancy word for editor.) He thus approves biblical critics' central theory that the Bible's first five books were compiled long after Moses' time from four strands of material, one known as "Jahwist."

That view rejects the 1906 declaration from the Vatican's Pontifical Biblical Commission, which condemned claims that the five books "are not of Mosaic authorship but were put together from sources mostly of post-Mosaic date." The commission said its view was supported by "many passages of both Testaments, the unbroken unanimity of the Jewish people... the constant tradition of the church" and internal indications in the texts.

The pope here allies himself with most current Roman Catholic specialists and in opposition to those who hold the older belief that the Pentateuch was mostly the work of Moses himself - Orthodox Jews, fundamentalist Protestants, many evangelical Protestants and a few conservative Catholics.

Since 1906, the Pontifical Biblical Commission has moved markedly leftward. The 1993 decree on Bible interpretation it presented to John Paul was less worried about liberal theories than the "fundamentalist approach" to the Bible. It warned that the latter is "dangerous," can "deceive" people, offers "illusory" interpretations, expresses "false certitude" and confuses the "divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations." Fundamentalism "invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide," the papal advisers charged. In short: literal interpretation of the bible (e.g. all this rubbish about offensive to have it labelled as mythology) is not even backed by the pope. It's funny how it sounds like the pope wouldn't mind the term "mythology" for the stories in the OT, yet we've got editors who are more offended about it than the pope. From the discussions on here it's obvious (as the article says) a "fundamentalist approach" to the bible being "intellectual suicide". NathanLee (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought the current Pope had written books defending the position that the Bible is not mythology; but even if he thinks the Bible is mythology, the last time I checked, the Pope does not speak for all Christians or many other significant viewpoints. For example there are much clearer statements by various Orthodox clergy, that the Bible is not mythological at all, and is historical and what the Orthodox Church teaches as history. So your comment is just more POV and biased rhetoric. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Aah, I see why you have trouble with logical arguments: Here I supply a link (and quote from it) to an article that states what I've put up there. You reply with "well I think otherwise and anyhow, the pope's not as important as the viewpoint I think someone said". Fine: it should be easy for you to supply EVIDENCE, particularly if, as you claim, commonly people would find the dictionary definition of mythology inaccurate in this case.

Stop bleating about POV this and POV that when out of the two of us I'm the only one who's been talking about references (this one, the ones in the article, the ones in Jewish mythology, Christian mythology, Islamic mythology etc). Either supply them or take some time out of editing and learn what is expected from[REDACTED] (which is more than "Til Eulenspiegel thinks"). You're running on pure opinion and trying to battle facts and references (that's why you're doing a piss poor job in case you're wondering). Perhaps I'm wrong but you speak for and to a far smaller number of people than a pope (you know, the head of the catholic religion who speaks on Earth for god to all catholics and sets out final word on how god's word is to be interpreted when a question arises). NathanLee (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Opening sentence

Template:RFCreli

The opening sentence needs to give some context. There are two opening sentences being argued over and I'd like to develop consensus one way or the other. They are:

1. Current: Noah's Ark, according to the Book of Genesis, was a large vessel ...
2. Proposed: In Judeo-Christian and Islamic mythology, Noah's Ark was a large vessel ...

Since most people who look at this page are familiar with the Genesis, the differences might not be so clear, so allow me to offer a similar example (pulled directly from another Misplaced Pages page) that isn't likely to be as familiar:

• Equivalent to the first: Duat (or Tuat) (also called Akert, Amenthes, or Neter-khertet), according to the Amduat, is the underworld.
• Equivalent to the second: In Egyptian mythology, Duat (or Tuat) (also called Akert, Amenthes, or Neter-khertet) is the underworld.

Discussion

I feel the second establishes context for the reader very clearly on account of it not relying on existing knowledge of the topic. At least one editor here, Til Eulenspiegel, has objected on the basis that the proposed change uses the word mythology, which according to them is not accurate. Til has been asked to provide some sort of evidence for this from a reliable source, and has yet to do so. He/she has, however, quoted from another Misplaced Pages page which discusses common uses of the term (for instance, the phrase urban myth). The assumption of this meaning is expressly discouraged at Misplaced Pages:WTA#Myth_and_legend. On the other hand, it has been demonstrated that the terminology is not only standard fare on Misplaced Pages, but that the usage has been adopted by other encyclopaedias (all theology and speculation concerning creation in the Christian community are based on the myth of creation in the biblical book of Genesis .. - Encyclopaedia Britannica) and reliable sources have been presented stating the exact opposite of Til's claims (Most readers would not be surprised to find that the biblical stories of creation and Eden are often considered mythological - Mythology: Myths, Legends, & Fantasies, Janet Parker (Editor), ISBN: 0785817905, pg. 330.).

I think Til is allowing his/her own prejudices get in the way of reason here, so instead of arguing seemingly without end, I've started this RFC in the hope we can settle on one side or the other for good. Ben (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: As this dispute goes back for years and involves numerous editors on both sides of the dispute, I've already opened dispute resolution process; Please see Medcab case link at top of this page. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to participate if necessary, but at the least this section should give third parties a quick overview of the arguments on both sides. Ben (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

PiCo,

why complicate an existing perfectly accurate opening? .. let's keep it clear and simple

No-one was trying to complicate anything, and I don't see where anyone has said the opening wasn't accurate. The problem as I see it, is that describing Noah's Ark as something from Genesis is nowhere near as clear as saying it's from Christian etc. mythology, so I really am trying to keep it clear and simple. I can think of an easy example of where this might come up. Kids with no grounding in the bible at all (most kids that go to a public school in Australia, and other countries I'm sure) are likely to hear of Noah's Ark at some point - it is fairly famous after all. If they're curious and come to this page, they're not going to know what Genesis is, but they're almost certain to know what Christianity, Judaism or Islam are. If you agree with that, then I'm not sure why you think Genesis is clearer than Christian mythology? Since mythology is perfectly accurate, I can't think of a clearer and more accurate sentence to introduce Noah's Ark. Ben (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A tally to gauge consensus

The current wording, #1

• Support - Who dont know what is Genesis can follow the link. And to describe the Noah's Ark as "mythology" (implicit in the proposed links of #2) is a POV. A ntv (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - for reasons already stated; but see compromise proposal below Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Who knows Noah's Ark from a mythology book? I don't. The only place I've ever heard it from is the Bible. Just say it like it is. People will think you're talking about two separate stories. There is another flood story, called Gilgamesh, but this one's from Genesis. So say Genesis. Henry8Iam (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Another reason to support #1, is that you can't get more accurate than it is now. It says that Noah's is in the book of Genesis, and there it is. Straight up. Why add a layer of interpretation in there? That's like calling a dinner plate, "a round ceramic object upon which one places ones food..." But it's a dinner plate, so just say so. For some, "a round ceramic object" may not be what they place their food on. Same here, we know one thing for sure: Noah's Ark is in the book of Genesis! This should be the first line.

• Support. As Henry8Iam says, why complicate an existing perfectly accurate opening? I oppose any compromise for the same reason - let's keep it clear and simple. But we could add a section or paragraph to the main article about genre, which is what this argument is all about. PiCo (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Keep it accurate, simple and neutral. Sorry for 'late' comment, have been away. 06:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The proposed wording, #2

• Support - per above. Ben (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - as per above. Comment: it would be helpful to expand the pool of editors for comment, otherwise it's just the usual suspects like me (e.g. at least get some input from Wikiproject Mythology, for which Noak's Ark is a FA). --PLUMBAGO 00:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - accurate, consistent terminology and clearly differentiates from "historical account" NathanLee (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - accurate, and doesn't limit the story to just Genesis, which conflicts with the section of the Islamic account. Even if any element of the myth ever actually happened, the content of the 'Ark in later traditions' section certainly shows that the account has been mythologised since then.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Concisely and comprehensively contextualises the Ark without making reference to more than is necessary. Ilkali (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion

A compromise has occurred to me, inspired by the WP:NPOV page. We can tweak the wording and tell both significant views in the intro neutrally:

• In Abrahamic religions, Noah's Ark was a large vessel... While many modern scholars treat the story within Judeo-Christian or Islamic mythology, there are still today a number of denominations and sects within the framework of all major Abrahamic faiths who continue to teach the deluge as a historical event.

This fact should also be explained for the benefit of the reader within the article: There are various denominations and sects that take a more historical view of the Old Testament and/or Quran accounts; or in the case of the Orthodox Tewahedo Church, the Old Testament in addition to Jubilees and I Enoch (the latter, they teach, was written before the Deluge.) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt at a compromise, but there is massive WP:UNDUE problems with the second half, and you're introducing awkward language in an attempt to censor words you don't like in the first half. It's unfortunate you don't like the word, but Noah's Ark is a part of the mythology by definition. Ben (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There you go again arguing that it is "UNDUE" to mention how religious groups interpret their own scriptures; apparently it must be interpreted for them by others... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

We simply report what is reported elsewhere, we don't interpret anything for anyone. Since this is already dealt with later in the introduction, there is no point arguing over this (or trying to introduce another version of it in the lead). Ben (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we tweak the wording to give both positions? Once again you seem uninterested in compromise and only want to present one position that many find offensive and disagree with, as if it were undisputed fact. Tell both sides if you're going to tell one. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

How about "In the mythology of Abrahamic religions". Mythology already covers "both sides" and the literally true interpretation of this story is a minority viewpoint (as I've shown: not even the pope sounds like he supports). NathanLee (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nathan, I suggest you do some study on the subject of genre in biblical studies - "myth" and "history" are not the only possibilities. Genesis 1-11 has some points which identify it as myth - it concerns supernatural events and has a theological message - but it also has points which are more commonly found in history-writing, notably the preoccupation with chronology. (Myths don't usually bother telling you just when the events happened, but Genesis is very clear that the Flood came in a certain year after the creation of the world). Jacobsen (who he? Find out!) calls the Noah story mythic history, for this very reason. It's also interesting that modern scholars don't cal the Mesopotamian flood stories myths - they call them epics (the epic of Gilgamesh, of Atrahasis, etc), because they hardly mention the gods - just like the Noah story, in which God has only a walk-on part. PiCo (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi PiCo. That's a good point about the chronology, though it's rather circumstantial. Anyway, I suspect that "epic" may carry as much baggage as "myth" (and possibly more). Either way, we'd need a good source to refer to the Epic of Noah's Ark!  :-) Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 10:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Aah, since when does something listing out chronology make it not mythological. Could you provide some sort of definition that backs this up? Sounds like any story which mentions an ordering of births/deaths is magically exempt from the definition. Again: this idea doesn't seem to match any definition out there that we've looked at in this discussion, but by all means: post up something.. NathanLee (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose this compromise. I dont see any need to define the Ark as a myth or as history. The Ark comes from the Genesis, that is a book. If the Genesis is a myth, a half myth or history shall be discussed in Genesis Article. Here we shall simply state that the Ark is firstly found in such a book. Who dont know what Genesis is can follow the link, or at least we can add something like "Genesis, an important text in Abrahaic religions". (for Til Eulenspiegel: I know perfectly that the Ark is mentioned also in 1Enoch that probably narrates a older version of Noah's story than Genesis itself, but to link the Ark to 1Enoch is WP:UNDUE and which book is the original is not a matter of faith even for Ethiopeans) A ntv (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the articles Christian mythology, Jewish mythology and Islamic mythology discuss this topic. Hence the desire to link to them in the lead.How about "anyone who doesn't know what mythology means can refer to those articles"? But perhaps you'd go and enhance the genesis article to inlude a clear statement that it is about a collection of mythological stories? (didn't "genesis doesn't mention mythology" get used as an argument as to why this article couldn't use the term also? Can't quite figure out what is acceptable to you guys). NathanLee (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

2nd compromise suggestion

I don't think any of these wordings are entirely satisfactory. While many people know of Noah's Ark through the Book of Genesis or the Qu'ran, others may not. I think it's important to give some context. My suggestion:

In Jewish, Christianity, and Islamic scriptures such as the Book of Genesis and the Qu'ran, Noah's Ark was a large vessel ...

My suggestion makes no judgment about the historicity of the Ark and the creation story, but I think it gives adequate context to understand what follows in the rest of the article. LovesMacs (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, we're agreed on why the current version is unsatisfactory, but you didn't explain why the proposed version isn't satisfactory. It seems you feel it judges the historicity of the story, but for the umpteenth time, classing the Noah's Ark story as a myth is not a judgement about its historicity. Would you argue for scientific articles to refrain from using the word 'theory' because one of its definitions is "An unproven conjecture"? Can you imagine a scientist running into a room and asking people to stop calling their work a theory? Of course not, it would be absurd. The word theory has an entirely different meaning in a scientific context. In exactly the same way, the word myth has an entirely different meaning here. It's usage is standard fare throughout the literature, and even Misplaced Pages. If people mistake the meaning of the word, as they often do with the word theory, you simply correct them, and each of the linked to articles do this perfectly well. Ben (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that using the word "myth" is a judgment of the historicity of the story (I personally view it as allegory, not historical fact), but I also think the word "myth" doesn't absolutely have to be in the very first sentence of the article. It can and should be used later on. LovesMacs (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I discovered something in the Islamic mythology article that is helpful. There's a {myth box} (I don't know how else to mention it without making it pop up). If this box were inserted at the top of this article, I would readily support Ben's proposed wording. I think it reads better if it says "In Jewish, Christian, and Islamic mythology, Noah's Ark is...]], but otherwise, yeah. LovesMacs (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That wording was my first suggestion ('was' instead of 'is' though), but we were trying to shorten it a little. Another suggestion I gave was In Abrahamic mythology, Noah's Ark was ..., but others were concerned the term wasn't as widespread (though we do have an article on it /shrug). Since one of the main points here is to keep things clear, I'm happy with either "Jewish, Christian and Islamic.." or "Judeo-Christian and Islamic..". Ben (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• SupportThis seems to do the job. Who cares if the word "mythology" is not used in the first sentence. I have no problem with it if it is used or not, but this will work fine.Ltwin (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Since we're trying to narrow this down to a preferred choice, maybe you can hash out some reasoning for this choice over the others? "This will work fine" doesn't really help us out. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It will work fine because Noah's Ark is mentioned in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scriptures. It fully and concisely describes the subject. What else is needed?Ltwin (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

An apple or a mango will do fine for afternoon tea, because they're both food. However, I would prefer the mango since I think it tastes better, they're on special and I have time to cut one up an eat it. The however bit is what else is needed, ie, why do you prefer one over the others? We're trying to decide which is best, not which will simply work. Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah we could try that but obviously this simple introductory sentence is very controversial for reasons I can't understand. You all can argue on specifics, but you'll probably will never reach a consensus if you don't compromise. I don't have any vested interest in this article. This just seems like it would be the best sentence. It doesn't have to include the word 'mythology'Ltwin (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well you should keep in mind this isn't a vote, so "no reason/arbitrary" isn't likely to make much of a difference or help us out. Thanks for taking the time to weigh in though. Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was a vote. A request was made for comment. I came hear to make a comment saw a proposal that I liked and supported and commented as such. If it was percieved as a vote it wasn't meant as such. However, I still don't quite understand why there is such a controversy over one sentence. It boggles my mind.Ltwin (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Mediator's Notes (Mediation Cabal)

Other means of dispute resolution of being exploited be other parties. Will re-open if parties request. Wikipedian2 (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You closed it only an hour or so after opening it. Ben Tillman has expressed interest in re-opening it, and I agree, so please do reopen or at least relist the case. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sheep and QI

I was wondering whether the animals really were two by two? In the first episode of the third series of Quite Interesting; Stephen Fry declares:

"No. It's a common mistake. People haven't read the Bible much these days, but I can read to you from Genesis, Chapter 7. "And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. Of every-- Of every clean beast, thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth nd sheep are accounted clean beasts o there would have been seven."

Now I'm not trying to rub anyone the wrong way here, but rather just trying to find out what's right. Were sheep accounted as clean beasts in those times, and then by that logic; were there seven sheep on the ark? If so, should it be mentioned in the article? =) Maybe this picture should be changed then. =P --BiT (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Fry seems to be quoting the King James bible, and is wrong: the bible doesn't say "thou shalt take to thee by sevens", or least not in Hebrew, which uses an expression that should be translated "seven pairs." So as sheep were indeed "clean", there were 14 of them on the Ark. PiCo (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That is very interesting. Should this be mentioned in the article (I think it merits a mention, as most people think that there were 2 of every animal), and were there any other clean animals exept humans and sheep? --BiT (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

BiT makes a good point: our article is lacking quite a lot of information about the Ark and its inhabitants. Perhaps we could add a section after Narrative - something similar already exists for some other bible-related articles, and is essentially about textual criticism. PiCo (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Islamic literalism section

I recently deleted a section on Islamic literalism, and Til reverted. I have some sympathy with the reversion. But my reasons for deletion are these: (1), if we start having separate sections for everyone's literalism (Latter Day Saints, Catholics, etc etc), where will it end? and (2) the website which was the sole source for the section was a personal one, by an individual with apparently no institutional support behind him - meaning I question what right he has to speak for anyone besides himself (I'd give more weight to the Sheikh of Al Azhar). It would be possible to have a single line in the existing section on literalism, mention ing that Muslims also read the story this way - better than a separate section IMO. PiCo (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is going to be a section on Biblical literalism, don't you think it is only fair to have one on Quranic literalism? Do you consider it not "notable" and therefore should get short-shrift? There are tons more references to Islamic views that could be added, if you don't think Harun Yahya, who is significant in his own right, is enough. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Til, I lived in various Muslim countries for five years, and I know from personal experience that the vast majority of Muslims take the Koran literally. (They point out, incidentally, that the name of Allah is quite literally inscribed in Arabic on the human heart, as well as the heart of every other living thing - and they're right; I don't think the Christians can beat that one). My concern is that we're getting into too much detail. I'd prefer to have a single sentence mentioing this, plus a better/more authoritative source. Please note that I'm not disputing the basic fact that most Muslims take the entire Koran literally. PiCo (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Muslim views of the Ark (both 'literalist' and 'non-literalist'), are notable and should be included. There is plenty of material which could be included in these sections. PiCo, no one is suggesting that the Christian interpretations be separated according to denomination, so your scare tactic of a slippery slope argument (a logical fallacy), is baseless. --Taiwan boi (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

TB, I doubt that you know anything about Islam or have ever lived in a Muslim country, or can read Arabic. (I do, have, and can). PiCo (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course I know something about Islam, I studied it formally. I've never lived in a Muslim country, and I can't read Arabic, but that's totally irrelevant to the matter of whether or not Muslim interpretations of the Ark are notable. You consistently make personal attacks instead of addressing the issues under discussion. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Studied Islam but can't read Arabic? My word!PiCo (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Were you not aware that it's possible to study Islam without reading Arabic? I see it's time to go to arbitration. You are refusing to stop your personal attacks. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Pico: Mentioning the fact that Muslims actually have well-referenced views on this topic as well, is "getting into too much detail?" I don't think that argument is going to hold up for long old boy -- no matter how many Muslim countries you've lived in. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Three Muslim countries in the Middle East/North Africa - Egypt, Iraq and Morocco - plus Bangladesh makes four (and a total of seven years after all). But I have no objection at all to mentioning that the majority of Muslims interpret the Koran, including Sura al Hud, literally. (My houseboy in Dhaka knew the entire Koran by heart - not an uncommon achievement - and certainly thought it all true). I merely believe that your paragraph is far too long, and that the Turkish gentleman isn't a source who speaks on behalf of any significant number of people. (I doubt that any of my Egyptian, Iraqi, Moroccan or Bengali friends will have heard of him). I propose instead a simple mention that the majority of Muslims blah blah blah (to repeat what I wrote above), and no reference at all. PiCo (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No doubt there are more authoritative reliable references that can be added to Yahya, surely that route would be more encyclopedic and preferable to your suggestion of having no reference at all. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Some kind of opinion poll would be best to establish that the literal interpretation is general among Muslims. Unfortunately I don't know if such a thing exists, though it might. Incidentally, we once had a reference to a Gallup poll showing 60% or so of Americans believing in a literal Ark - is that still in the article? It should be. PiCo (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find sufficient Muslim sources on the Ark to provide evidence for Muslim interpretations. This Muslim article argues for the historicity of the Ark, its present day survival, and the universality of the flood. Two Muslim papers here and here assess and compare the Sumerian, Jewish, and Muslim flood narratives, and argue for a Muslim interpretation of the flood which upholds the historicity of the Ark but argues that the flood was local. This Muslim book argues for the historicity of the Ark, and its present day survival. This article from the Jewish Encyclopedia contains further information on Muslim interpretations of the Ark. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Til, your para (or section) says there are "group

Subheadings

I see PiCo has edited a series of subheadings, collapsing into a section entitled simply 'Modern biblical literalism and the Ark', despite the fact that this section contains only a small amount of commentary on Biblical literalism, and a large amount of commentary on non-literalist and secular views. That was predictable. I will now restore this to the factual description which was there originally. --Taiwan boi (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

TB, the section is entirely about literal approaches to the Ark narrative - not a word about allegorical interpretations, or any other than the literal. PiCo (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You are being deliberately misleading. You are attempting to place under the heading Biblical literalism a range of interpretations, most of which are not Biblical literalist. The term Biblical literalism has a definite and distinct meaning. You are using a term which Misplaced Pages defines as pejorative, and you are using it in a misleading way to refer to interpretations which are not Biblical literalist. You are attempting to use it to refer to any interpretations which consider the Ark narrative to be in any way historical. This is simply wrong. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm placing under biblical literalism a belief that the biblical Ark was a literal Ark, is literalism. And why do you think this is pejorative?PiCo (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have explained this all before. You are placing under Biblical literalism a range of interpretations, most of which are not Biblical literalist. They are simply interpretations which hold to the historicity of the Ark narrative. An interpretation which understands the the Ark narrative to be historical is not necessarily a Biblical literalist interpretation. Look up the term Biblical literalism , please. The term Biblical literalism does not include liberal and non-Fundamentalist interpretations. Nor does it include allegorical and spiritual interpretations. It is 'a primarily pejorative term referring to the adherence to an explicit and literal sense of the Bible'. It is 'often used pejoratively to refer to those who subscribe to biblical inerrancy', and to 'suggest that the person or group described as "literalist" would deny the existence of allegory, parable and metaphor in the Bible'. To put it another way, 'The term "Biblical Literalism" is primarily pejorative'. You are using it to describe interpretations which recognize allegory, parable, and metaphor in the Ark narrative, you are using it to describe interpretations which do not adhere to an explicit and literal sense of the Bible, and you are using it to describe interpretations which do not adhere to historical grammatical method in Biblical hermeneutics. This has all been explained to you before in detail, and yet you continue to try and sabotage this section. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

TB, your argument on the Ark doesn't hold water. First, let's deal with definitions: Literalism means taking the text literally, meaning, in this case, holding that if Genesis says the Ark was a literal ship made of wood, then it was. Can you agree with this? If you do, then all arguments which hold to this definition are literalist, QED. (By the way, there's no point quoting the Misplaced Pages article on literalism - Misplaced Pages is not an authority within the terms of Misplaced Pages editing). PiCo (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I have been through this many times. The term in question is Biblical literalist, not 'literalism'. You were placing under Biblical literalist a range of interpretations, most of which are not Biblical literalist. They are simply interpretations which hold to the historicity of the Ark narrative. Linking to the Wiki definition is valid for two reasons, firstly because it identifies the fact that according to Misplaced Pages Biblical literalist is viewed as a pejorative term (and thus not to be used, according to Misplaced Pages policy), and secondly because the Wiki article on Biblical literalism contains reliable third party references which confirm the definition of Biblical literalist. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Widened the scope

Have put in mention of "Nuh's ark" (a common Islamic way of saying Noah) and clarified which account comes from jewish/christian genesis. It'd be good to follow it with the islamic one, I know it's a bit more scattered throughout the qur'an though.. We've got mention of it in the article already, but important to not get in a christian only mindset: this story belongs to 3 monotheistic religions in roughly the same story line. NathanLee (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And promptly it was reverted by Til E.. Unless there's some actual references that back up your definitions and a reason other than "I'm offended" (which is NOT for the final time a policy..) you're reverting meaningful changes. e.g. Islamic naming, the neutral treatment of this (rather than a christian centric treatment of this story), proper identification of this as mythology.

Can I suggest TE that you learn to contribute by doing more than reverting. NathanLee (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I've re-opened to medcab case (see the link at the top of the page) to try and get this sorted, so until then there is not much more that can be done. It seems best off to avoid the word until then. Also, you might want to mind WP:CIVIL in your edit summaries. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The policy on reversions is quite clear that it is to be avoided because it just pisses people off and in this case worsened the article. I've asked for definitions/references that back up his strange position as currently the only source for the "definition" that this dispute is over is a single quote (in amongst dictionary definition which all dispute that definition). Add to that if the issue was that one word then reverting the whole edit was heavy handed and stupidly done (which is why I labelled it as such). NathanLee (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you take a long wiki-break, you are clearly having problems adhering to WP:CIVIL and seem to be trolling for a reaction by persisting in defining the Bible as "mythology", you are so smug that your POV pushing and bigoted militating against peoples beliefs (of which there is much evidence) is the correct cource of action, you seem incapable of realizing that there is any POV other than your own. . Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Way to stir the pot the other way. Can we just leave things until the medcab is over? Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Do I have to define another term. Ok, "dumbly reverts". That would indicate a certain lack of intelligence in a reversion action (e.g. I dumbly walked into the door). How so? Because your issue is with one word which you could quite easily have removed without reverting the other changes. Hence my labelling your revert as "dumb". If you could PLEASE come up with some references and definitions to back up your view. I'd have thought that at some stage in the 3 years you sound like you've been edit warring on here that you'd have plenty of references. The bible does indeed contain mythology (you still don't seem to know what the word means and haven't read the definitions listed or the myth box, or the[REDACTED] page, academic usage or the policy on HOW MYTH AND LEGEND are to be used). In short your reverts are directly against policy on how and what mythology mean and are to be used.

I've given you plenty of references, all you've got is "it's offensive" (which isn't[REDACTED] policy "do not censor" and you've provided no proof of any such widespread opinion e.g. surely a pope would object.. but I gave reference that shows he didn't), the sole mention seems to be a single quote and some unreferenced opinion on Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution using the term myth as a way to ban religion (when reading about it: knocking down churches, imprisoning ministers,

Got anything concrete yet? Given the earlier comment by you (and I quote) "even the current Pope is on record as writing a book imploring that the Bible is NOT to be classed as mythology" turned out to be the opposite: the pope has written a book indicating he was fine with the OT being labelled as mythology (as I showed with an actual reference.. how[REDACTED] is supposed to work). Here's a list of definitions that back what I'm saying:

• merriam webster
• thefreedictionary
• britannica
• encarta
• about.com
• dictionary.com
• dictionary.die.net
• answers.com aggregate definitions

Simply objecting to something with no references is the very definition of POV. I think it's time (for the first time in 3 years?) you cough up some definitions and if you can't: stop reverting to protect your niche view and niche definition. Surely you'll have no trouble if your idea satisfies the test for niche views. NathanLee (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The policy I referred to above: Which I think is pretty clear that what you are arguing about is contrary to policy.

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. Except in rare cases (e.g., urban myth), the common meaning should neither be used, nor assumed. Do not use the word to refer to propaganda or to mean "something that is commonly believed but untrue".

Clear enough?NathanLee (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Mythology" is a pure Point-of-view: Getting back to basic cornerstone policy

You know how they say everyone looks at the elephant from a different vantage-point, from a different perspective, from a different aspect, etc. depending on where they are standing... That is what we here call "point-of-view" or POV. There is unquestionably a point-of-view that considers the Bible and Quran to be "books of mythology", no debate there. In fact, this is also the point-of-view of those who consider ALL religion to be "mythology", and indeed, those who do not make any distinction between religion and "mythology". BUT IT IS STILL A POINT-OF-VIEW. What is "mythology" from one person's vantagepoint or way of looking things, may in fact be the "Word of God" for another person. Or in the case of the Bible and Quran, for millions of other people. When there are multiple significant ways of looking at things, Misplaced Pages's policy is to carefully tread neutral ground with careful language, describing all the main points of view, but not taking sides or endorsing any one of them. When that happens, Misplaced Pages is truly a beautiful thing. When that doesn't happen, and when it gets co-opted by an editor or editor's point-of-view,[REDACTED] is an ugly thing. It is especially crucial to tread carefully with respect to major established world religions and creeds, which are indeed endorsed by some governments around the world.

But it takes a certain amount of arrogance (and there's just no other word for it) to be so smugly convinced that your own personal vantage-point on the Scriptures is so correct, as to attempt to redefine "neutrality" to mean your own point-of-view, and say that therefore the majority of others around the circle with different vantagepoints from yours are incorrect, and need to adopt your "neutral" perspective. That isn't "neutral" at all; the whole thinking there seems to be entirely perverse. Voltaire, Karl Marx, and Nathan Lee may all agree that the Bible and the Quran are really "mythology", and may attempt to shove their opinion down everyone else's throats. But it is still just their own opinion, and they have classically failed to convince everyone else of their opinion. So next, they declare that everyone whom they haven't convinced, "doesn't count" and should be excluded, even when that means excluding most people on Earth. Presto, instant consensus and no debate at all - because only those few people who agree with them that the Bible and Quran are really "mythology", have any voice left. WRONG. I'm going to call you on it every single time. Every single time. This mentality, to me, represents the very worst of wikipedia. "Mythology" is a loaded word, it's a weasel word, it's (as has been noted with many references) an offensive word; it's (as has been noted with many references) historically and in the present day used as an attack word; it's a duplicitous and confusing word with more than one meaning; and every policy[REDACTED] has, calls for some other, neutral, word to be used in its place, instead of using it to characterize the belief systems of millions of people. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) Any references? Perhaps you could just change your user name to "citation needed" and make it clear that you don't operate that way. This is all just more white noise. As I've stated: Argumentum ad populum, appeals to emotion of the personal opinion of yourself are fallacious arguments. Prove me wrong by referencing something. Anything.

I've given you a decent list of references from dictionary definitions and encyclopaedia articles and the link straight to the WP policy on how this term must be used above and you've just given another personal rant citing "offence" (for the umpteenth time:[REDACTED] does not censor:a current newspaper article which reiterates this). It's "Especially crucial" we don't treat religions differently because they still have followers, refer to the page on Muhammad and the discussion on images of him or the failure to use "peace be upon him" after each mention as to whether we censor to avoid offence to all and sundry. All religions, whether living or dead are to be treated the same way (you're confusing the policy on biography of living persons there I think). You forgot to add "the pope" to the list above of people who think that the OT is not to be taken literally.

Yes it is my view that this story is a mythological one, but what I've done to make it more than just "talking out my arse" is to reference it to reliable external sources and look up the wikipedia policies on the matter.

To quote a line from the film The princess bride when you say "as has been noted with many references": I do not think that means what you think it means. Where are these references? Mine are in the above discussion topic, repeated again above (which you failed to respond to).NathanLee (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're worried about the word having "duplicitous and confusing" meaning (which is true of many words): why is the mythology box which clarifies beyond any doubt which way the term can be used not an adequate solution (as it is on many other pages). NathanLee (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not again. Til Eulenspiegel, unless I've missed it, the word "mythology" no longer appears in the introduction of this article, and only appears in passing in the article and in the categories. Is there some specific problem with the article that you'd care to identify? If not, I would suggest that we stop this discussion right now so that we don't just waste time trawling over the same old ground as last time. Judging from the above, I cannot identify any new substance to your views about the article or how it could be improved, but I may be wrong. Anyway, I could go on: "Mythology is an equivocal term used throughout academia to describe a class of narratives, of which Noah's Ark is just one example ...", but I won't. Please be specific, or drop it. --PLUMBAGO 14:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. OK, I now see "mythology" in the links on the page (rather than the visible text). Is this the problem? Still, apart from causing offence to a subset of believers (that doesn't include figures like the Pope), is there another point not already covered by Nathan? --PLUMBAGO 14:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that this has been going on for three years with no "new ground" is exactly why mediation is now necessary. I consider all of Nathan's arguments to be "white noise" much like he considers mine to be. I am ready to go on mediation with all the references to get this over with once and for all, because I don't want to see the back and forth go on for another 3 years. Neutrality Policy and all other policy is very clear, that we should seek alternatives to being needlessly offensive to significant groups. But time and again I see you appealing, not to the policies, but instead to some sort of Hegelian dialectic notion that says Yes, we do need to deliberately offend significant groups and purposefully create conflict, in order to effect some kind of change in the world. That may be orthodox Hegelian dialectic, but it's not how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work; what we want is a product that everyone is happy with; or if not everyone, then at least most people. We should not be obliged to go out of our way to accommodate those few anti-religious bigots who want to see articles that are really a hack-job, attacking and ridiculing people's firmly held beliefs by endorsing condescending terms like "mythology" in the very first sentence. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Where to start? Firstly, while I'm sure that you don't mean it, your last sentence could easily be read as a personal attack. Not a helpful start. Secondly, I've not the first idea what a Hegelian dialectic has to do with this discussion, or what it has to do with provoking conflict here. More likely, being perceived as making personal attacks is likely to lead to conflict. Thirdly, a product that "everyone is happy with" is not a good description of what we should be aiming for at WP. Verifiability using reliable sources is more important than a democratic vote on agreeableness on the part of editors. Finally, you could be mistaken for failing to assume good faith when you appear to attribute motives to other editors that they do not have. How many more times do we need to say "the word 'mythology' is a standard term in dictionaries and academic circles for narratives like Noah's Ark" for it to be clear that this is exactly what we mean? As it happens, "mythology" is fairly anodyne term for a narrative which, if taken completely literally, has been falsified by objective standards. Anyway, as usual, this isn't going anywhere, but I'm reluctant to waste other editors' time on mediation. --PLUMBAGO 17:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I really don;t care if you're "reluctant to waste other editors' time on mediation", because as far as I know, it's not your call to make. The waste of time has been going on for THREE YEARS NOW and shows no signs of ending on its own. WE NEED MEDIATION NOW. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's another religious figure (Archbishop of Adelaide, Australia) describing the ark as "Present at the fundraising function was the Anglican Archbishop of Adelaide, the Most Reverend Ian George. Claiming support of most scholars he called Noah's Flood an "etiological myth" which originated from a range of sources."

So I've got an archbishop and a pope saying that the term myth is appropriate. Just how many religious leaders do I need to get to stack up against TE's personal crusade to "defend the faith" or whatever it is that his/her mission is (as described in this discussion section). TE: still no references? Citation needed please.. Sounds like you've had 3 years to find them and can't produce anything? NathanLee (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel, I take offense at your characterization of the use of "Mythology" as the work of "anti-religious bigots." "Myth" is the correct term for what the story is, and no-one yet has suggested a better word. I said as much a year and a half ago when I first responded to an RfC. You may not like it, but consensus has pretty consistently agreed with me on this. Sχeptomaniac 00:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sxeptomaniac. I am a Christian and I believe that there was a Noah and he had an ark; however, by definition, whether its true or not, the story is part of Judeo-Christian mythology and there is nothing wrong with saying that.Ltwin (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't going to ever end until we have mediation

Nuff said Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course it won't end if you refuse to simply supply references to back up your views. I've fulfilled my side of that bargain, how about you do yours? I'm trying to give you every opportunity to do so and you consistently ignore it. Your own personal opinion is not enough, just as my own personal opinion is not enough. I would think that the discussions at the pages you object to being linked will clear up things. NathanLee (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I gave you an entire page full of references just a couple days ago, that only took me about 5 seconds of searching to find, but you're blithely ignoring them or off-handedly brushing them away. Once again, Answers.com has a very good cross-section of what any more thorough search on "myth" also turns up, with little effort. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Forgive me if I missed something (and I just checked here, on your page, on my page), but I've only ever noticed you give one link, to an answers.com page on which there was a single quote to "dead religion" surrounded by other definitions and other quotes which define it as "sacred narrative" or similar. Take another 5 seconds then please.. I imagine you'd be able to supply a dictionary definition that has mythology/myth either synonymous with "religion" or "dead religion". I don't think that single quote (which may or may not be in context) about dead religion really trumps the handful of dictionary definitions on the same page which define it correctly/consistently. From that answers.com page:

First one:

n.

1. 1. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth. 2. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth. 2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia. 3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. 4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth” (Leon Wolff).

New Latin mymacrthus, from Late Latin mymacrthos, from Greek mūthos.

Nothing about dead religion there, ranges from fictitious story/person or thing up to traditional, typically ancient story.. Seems to fit. Second one on the page:

noun

1. A traditional story or tale that has no proven factual basis: fable, legend. See belief/unbelief, real/imaginary, religion. 2. A body of traditional beliefs and notions accumulated about a particular subject: folklore, legend, lore, mythology, mythos, tradition. See knowledge/ignorance. 3. Any fictitious idea accepted as part of an ideology by an uncritical group; a received idea: creation, fantasy, fiction, figment, invention. See belief/unbelief, real/imaginary.

Also seems to fit here. The antonyms section is perhaps a glimmer of hope for you, defining the antonym to myth to be "fact", "non fiction" which is also fair enough, I've yet to see anyone presenting facts or evidence that this is a factual account (science has evidence that this story did not happen because there was no worldwide flood or break in the fossil lines). It's followed with

myth, a kind of story or rudimentary narrative sequence, normally traditional and anonymous, through which a given culture ratifies its social customs or accounts for the origins of human and natural phenomena, usually in supernatural or boldly imaginative terms. The term has a wide range of meanings, which can be divided roughly into ‘rationalist’ and ‘romantic’ versions: in the first, a myth is a false or unreliable story or belief

(adjective: mythical) ,

while in the second, ‘myth’ is a superior intuitive mode of cosmic understanding (

adjective: mythic ).

In most literary contexts, the second kind of usage prevails, and myths are regarded as fictional stories containing deeper truths, expressing collective attitudes to fundamental matters of life, death, divinity, and existence (sometimes deemed to be ‘universal’). Myths are usually distinguished from legends in that they have less of an historical basis, although they seem to have a similar mode of existence in oral transmission, re‐telling, literary adaptation, and allusion. A mythology is a body of related myths shared by members of a given people or religion, or sometimes a system of myths evolved by an individual writer, as in the ‘personal mythologies’ of William Blake and W. B. Yeats; the term has sometimes also been used to denote the study of myths.

No mention of synonymous with "religion" or "dead religion". Seems to match this story also. On to the next one:

Traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the worldview of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon. Myths relate the events, conditions, and deeds of gods or superhuman beings that are outside ordinary human life and yet basic to it. These events are set in a time altogether different from historical time, often at the beginning of creation or at an early stage of prehistory. A culture's myths are usually closely related to its religious beliefs and rituals. The modern study of myth arose with early 19th-century Romanticism. Wilhelm Mannhardt, James George Frazer, and others later employed a more comparative approach. Sigmund Freud viewed myth as an expression of repressed ideas, a view later expanded by Carl Gustav Jung in his theory of the "collective unconscious" and the mythical archetypes that arise out of it. Bronislaw Malinowski emphasized how myth fulfills common social functions, providing a model or "charter" for human behaviour. Claude Lévi-Strauss discerned underlying structures in the formal relations and patterns of myths throughout the world. Mircea Eliade and Rudolf Otto held that myth is to be understood solely as a religious phenomenon. Features of myth are shared by other kinds of literature. Origin tales explain the source or causes of various aspects of nature or human society and life. Fairy tales deal with extraordinary beings and events but lack the authority of myth. Sagas and epics claim authority and truth but reflect specific historical settings.

That's exactly describing the story of Noah's ark: deeds of gods, outside normal human life, a culture's myths are usually closely related to riligious beliefs and rituals. etc etc From an archeaology dictionary:

A narrative organizing data such as beliefs about transcendental powers, the origins of the universe, social institutions, or the history of the people. Viewed in functional terms myths serve to record and present the moral system whereby contemporary attitudes and actions are ordered and validated.

Yup.. Next.

A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.

Sounds about right. Next. Oh, we're onto quotes rather than definitions. Then we're onto wikipedia, which defines it as per the rest of them. What's left? Hrm, some google adsense entries for myth busters tv show. So which of those definitions is what you're talking about? NathanLee (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

NathanLee (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

All of them, they perfectly demonstrate that you are imposing your personal POV onto this article, because there are numerous significant groups of people who do not agree with you that the Bible (or Quran) is false or fiction, and even who specifically maintain that they consider the Ark story to be historical (whether global or local). What part of WP:NPOV do you not get? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

People believe myths. I'm not for a second arguing that no one believes this story is true and never have had a doubt that some people believe it to be true. People believe fairytales, lies, truths, half truths, facts, science, superstitions, pseudoscience etc. How does that change the nature of whatever that thing is? The definitions state that people might believe them to be true or hold some truth don't they?

People can believe that the world is flat all they like: that doesn't make it any less of a discredited cosmological model, nor does it mean that it has to be labelled in such a way as to cater to the viewpoint that contradicts science and generally accepted views.

I think you're stuck in a literal interpretation of this and any attempt to label this as mythology opens up the idea that this might not literally be 100% true and is a sacred story that may be something between 100% true and 100% false. That this is 100% true is a niche viewpoint and has been unequivocally rejected by science and biblical scholars (and it appears popes) for some time now. NathanLee (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Nathan. I don't think Til is ever going to change his mind. He has been provided with more than enough references, opinions and[REDACTED] policies to satisfy all but the most stubborn editors. Until someone from outside the debate comes in and assess this, we're wasting our time. Maybe the medcab will do that, I don't know, but it's probably going to best to save all this until then. Letting Til spam up this page with the same crap over and over again is only going to make it annoying for others to sort through it I think. Cheers, Ben (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Framing the subject

Hello! I'm responding to the request at MedCab for assistance focusing on how to frame the story of Noah's Ark. I've looked over the editing history of the article and the past discussion to get a handle on the disagreement. How do reliable sources explicitly treat Noah's Ark? Please be as brief as possible and avoid discussion of general definitions and similar arguments. This isn't the place for it and we should not base article information on our own conclusions. Exclusively focus on sources discussing the article topic. Provide some examples with full citation information to illustrate your assertion about the subject's treatment in reputable sources. If you have any questions, concerns or otherwise need to contact me, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page or send me an email. Vassyana (talk) 07:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Response from Ben

Hi Vassyana, and thanks for reading over all of this. The Noah's Ark story is considered by scholars to be derived from earlier myths, with modifications to suit the Hebrew perspective. This is detailed in many sources, but since you wanted this to be brief I'll just list the most accessible reliable source I can think of: Encylcopedia Britannica. Relevant quotes from their article on the topic, explicitly treating this viewpoint, include:

The story of the Flood has close affinities with Babylonian traditions of apocalyptic floods in which Utnapishtim plays the part corresponding to that of Noah. These mythologies are the source of such features of the biblical Flood story as the building and provisioning of the ark, its flotation, and the subsidence of the waters, as well as the part played by the human protagonist. Tablet XI of the Gilgamesh epic introduces Utnapishtim, who, like Noah, survived cosmic destruction by heeding divine instruction to build an ark.

and

Despite the tangible similarities of the Mesopotamian and biblical myths of the flood, the biblical story has a unique Hebraic perspective.

I just want to quickly note that it's going to be hard not to discuss definitions. On the one hand, it has been established that the Ark was derived from earlier myths, an impossible construction, there was no worldwide flood, etc. On the other hand there exist notable (though not neutral and in violation of WP:WEIGHT with respect to 'framing the subject') points of view that hold that the story is strictly true (and there is middle ground). So there is this true/false thing going on, and people are going to want to choose their words carefully, based on definitions. I understand peoples points of view are going to influence their choice or words, even though we're not strictly supposed to worry about definitions if reliable sources don't. If we could choose a word whose definition didn't broach this true/false subject in the first line, and was backed by reliable sources, we'd be laughing. Mythology, by definition, is that word - it is simply a sacred story, true, false or unknowable. It's also the word used by reliable scholarly sources to describe these sorts of stories. I think this 'definition' solution that accommodates points of view and is backed by reliable sources, is the best we could hope for. Cheers, Ben (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ben, you might want to put this text here. I need to put something there myself for that matter. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 10:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Plumbago. I did check that page, but in the comment box it said Starting off with questions about reliable sources on article talk., so I posted here? You think I should copy or move this text to that page? Cheers, Ben (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Response from Til Eulenspiegel

Dear Moderator, you asked a specific question, which is, "How do reliable sources explicitly treat Noah's Ark?" This is indeed the question, but the answer will of course depend on the POV of the source. As you know, in disputes with conflicting sources, the sources are more often considered reliable to show that there IS a significant POV - not that the POV is correct. There are reliable sources that show Noah's Ark being treated across the whole gamut -- from treating it as absolute hogwash, to the absolute truth. The problem arises when one POV asserts a priority over another POV. This has led to people arguing that even though the Book of Genesis is considered canonical by Christian Churches (among others), these Churches are not entitled to be recognized as having any "significant POV" to the problem. (Parallel arguments have been made with regard to Muslim POVs on their own Quran, supposedly not being "significant" enough to warrant neutral treatment).

It is easy to demonstrate reliable sources that there are religious bodies that treat the Ark as completely historical. One small sample, which is only the tip of the iceberg, is Father Tadros Malaty's Commentary on the Book of Genesis expressing the well-known position of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, which traces its origins to the very beginning of Christianity. This elaborates the conviction that the entire Book of Genesis is a completely historical document, in addition to being a symbolic one, and that it is not at all at odds with Christians' understanding of the world today. Here is a sample quote from Father Malaty:

The lineage of Noah's children reveals the origins of ancient nations. Professor Kautysch of Haile has stated "It is an absolutely unequaled register of the origin of nations and their development, confirmed by all previous archaeological discoveries."

Incidentally, the individual for whom the above-mentioned University is named, Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia, was a firm believer that the outline presented in Genesis is historical; he often referred to connected events in Genesis as historical, especially the Tower of Babel, in his speeches. That Heads of State have subscribed to this POV (and still do) in itself should qualify it as "significant".

Granted, we cannot endorse the POV that the Ark was historical. But it must be clear from the outset that this significant view is one of the poles we must steer between, in our attempt for strict neutrality, and thus we similarly cannot endorse the opposing claims of hypothesizing scientists, scholars, or whoever else insists their interpretation of Scripture is the only correct one. We cannot smear the significant "historical view", intending somehow to exclude it from consideration, by claiming it to be a "fringe". Rather, we should use language that is neutral as possible, from all points of view, and describe and attribute the range of opinions. We can explain who considers it to be historical, and who does not, and why; but we can't say it is historical. We can explain who considers it a myth, and who does not, and why; but we can't say it is a myth. All this much is basic NPOV policy. As for the endless debate over whether the word is offensive, I do not wish to prolong it, but it should suffice to mention the already cited[REDACTED] article on myth which for a very long time has stated that "many people take offense" when the narratives they believe to be true are called myths. I interpret the beautiful words written on WP:NPOV to mean not p-ing off viewpoints, but some editors have a more dialectical interpretation which allows them to interpret it to mean the exact opposite of what it says, in other words we have to p. off one significant viewpoint, by redefining the opposing viewpoint as "neutrality". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us a reference for your statements about the views of that guy you mention and the bit about "heads of state" subscribing to the POV (and are heads of state a significant world view?). Sorry, but you've claimed things before and they turned out to be the opposite or still awaiting references.

Something you mentioned is the very definition of fringe pseudoscience theory on the Noah's descendents: any actual studies? because the studies of human genetic lines I've never seen a single mention of Noah in there. There's no scientific backing for this at all in scientific fields which show a wide spread of humanity through the ages, with migration from Africa , . e.g. that's a fringe theory you're citing as needing coverage or consideration. I would say that under WP policy it has no place on[REDACTED] as a fringe theory.

As for who regards it as myth: I'm happy to label it as "Regarded as myth by all but some fundamentalist Christians who believe it to be true." That would be accurate wouldn't it? (which is what people would find if they go to the Christian mythology ( a link you objected to, even though it contains a discussion of this very issue for people to make their minds up), Creationism pages for instance) Would that satisfy you? NathanLee (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Nathan, yes, I feel the compromise you suggest would indeed be acceptable and accurate, with perhaps one minor edit, to add "and Muslims" as I have also already demonstrated with other sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal. Firstly, it wouldn't be accurate. You're abusing the term myth, going against WP:WTA#Myth_and_legend. Secondly, I haven't seen a single source that states some people don't think this is a myth, so now we're against WP:OR. And finally, it still doesn't establish some context for readers of the article in the first sentence, which was the whole point of the exercise. Ben (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't actually realized that "myth" was on Misplaced Pages's list of "Words to avoid", but that by itself seems like another cincher for why we should avoid the word, wherever possible. Its example even says specifically that if we were to write about "Christian beliefs" but "Hindu myths", we would be betraying a POV. (Obviously...) Note, "myth" is the "word to avoid" here, not "belief", so obviously for consistency, this means using "Christian beliefs" and "Hindu beliefs", not "Christian myths" and "Hindu myths". That project page section you linked, speaks for exactly the way I see it. As for sources, I don't know what would ever satisfy you, since every attempt I make to show how some Christian and Muslim bodies really do have historical interpretations of this story, is met with your response that they are disqualified as "fringe" for trying to interpret their own scriptures, instead of accepting these views and characterizations thrust upon their scriptures externally. So what kind of further sources would possibly satisfy you that literalist viewpoints really do exist, that you won't similarly claim to disqualify? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That WTA article has been linked plenty of times, by myself and others, on this very page. Have you even been reading what we type? What a fat waste of time all that was then. The purpose of bringing that link up is note we are supposed to avoid using the word myth to imply fiction, not avoid it altogether. Just like we are supposed to avoid using the word theory, and I quote from that page, to mean guess or speculation. We still use the word to describe scientific theories though. So, with respect to that page, you haven't provided a single reference that claims people think Noah's Ark is not a myth. Ben (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Response from NathanLee

Britannica mentions: "The Old Testament is usually regarded as embodying much material that anthropologists would regard as containing mythical themes in just the same way as the practices of the ancient Greeks, Chinese, or Abenaki Indians are bound up with myths." The term "flood mythology" is used all over the place: Britannica on flood myth (has references to Noah's ark in jewish mythology. An archbishop in Australia described it as "Present at the fundraising function was the Anglican Archbishop of Adelaide, the Most Reverend Ian George. Claiming support of most scholars he called Noah's Flood an "etiological myth" which originated from a range of sources."

No one is arguing that some people don't believe this thing is true (just like pretty much anything.. "world is flat", santa claus, easter bunny etc). But regardless of how many people believe it is true, the nature of this story is that it is mythology by definition, just like the Epic of gilgamesh, Pandora's box, story of the Minataur etc. The term makes no assertion about the validity. See the myth box and policy on how the term is to be used. Template:Myth box Christianity

The argument was at one stage that it is offensive and that we should not use it (despite it being accurate). As to why the "offensive" argument (which hasn't been made with any references as yet) is irrelevant:try images of Mohammed (unlike this argument we have many examples of reliable sources about people dying in riots over images of Muhammad causing offence.. yet for accuracy in the article it is left in article about[REDACTED] images of muhammad, haven't yet seen a reference about any sort of widespread offence about the term mythology). If there is some evidence that the there is a significant view that the term mythology doesn't apply perhaps that would lend weight to the argument against it, but dictionary definitions, academic use, religious leaders (I've found a pope and an archbishop at least) seem to have no issue. Some examples of variations: "The fabled Noah's ark" , referred to as legend, typical flood myth. Pope argues specifically against literal/fundamentalist interpretations see above. References in books: The Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis, OT myth.

The story matches "myth" by every dictionary definition that has been posted up, see bullet points I've put up above in various places.

• This story is mentioned in Deluge (mythology), Christian mythology, Islamic mythology, Jewish mythology. To argue that religious stories cannot be called mythology for christian ones is blatantly biased when we have Greek mythology, Aboriginal mythology etc.
• There's been no attempt to provide any definition or reference that states that this story is not mythology.
• As the article says a literal interpretation was abandoned by scientists and biblical scholars back in the 19th century(references: Plimer, Ian (1994) "Telling Lies for God: reason versus creationism" (Random House), Browne, Janet (1983). The Secular Ark: Studies in the History of Biogeography. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-02460-6., Young, Davis A. (1995). "History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth" and ).
• some people believe myths to be true (the definitions, myth box, mythology, christian mythology, Islamic, jewish etc mythology pages all say that, so it explicitly allows for that possibility).
• no dictionary definition has indicated that this term is a hate word or offensive etc (or any reference WHATSOEVER by the way that this term is offensive)
• as far as the evidence goes it seems no one in this argument it seems now is arguing that this is to be considered historical fact
• So if it certainly isn't historical fact, and the dictionary definitions and[REDACTED] policy states how the term is to be used: what's the argument for not using this common term that's used all over[REDACTED] and the rest of the world to refer to stories exactly like this.
• It may have been based on a local flood, but the significant elements of the story (all world's animals on an ark, global flood, just one family remaining, logistics of the ark) has been "unequivocally rejected" (said an article on the BBC) by science.

The argument that this is offensive or to be avoided has not been provided with a single reference: nor that the term mythology is a hate word (I've asked personally here but got no response yet). NathanLee (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, as this article is within the group, some attention to the goals of that group (e.g. correct usage of the term, similar mythologies etc) should come into play. This seems to be a case of one or two users who simply do refuse to acknowledge the definition of the term and how it is to be used on[REDACTED] etc. NathanLee (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Bible articles
• Unknown-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics