Talk:Noah's Ark

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 [i.e. modern timber-hulled] ships indicated that they were already pushing or had exceeded the practical limits for the size of wooden ships". In response to the claim that the Ark had to be seaworthy, literalist websites cite various studies which, in their view, indicate that Noah's Ark was seaworthy, including a 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.

RFC: Opening sentence

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia page which discusses common uses of the term (for instance, the phrase urban myth). The assumption of this meaning is expressly discouraged at Wikipedia:WTA#Myth_and_legend. On the other hand, it has been demonstrated that the terminology is not only standard fare on Wikipedia, 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)

But it's a POV that considers the Bible not factual; other POVs differ. Same with any religion's sacred writings - we have no authority to determine whose scriptures are not "considered factual" and whose are. That's the first thing anyone taking a comparative religion class learns. Also, your reason is, yet again, living proof that the vast majority of intelligent, English-speaking people are going to utterly fail to appreciate the entire artificial "wrong definition" argument right off the bat, with this duplicitous and ambiguous weasel word that ALL dictionaries give a subjective, POV meaning to. Jwanders understands that the real, obvious intention of the word "mythology" is, and always has been, to imply endorsement of a view that a given religion's scriptures are "not factual", and nobody is really fooled by this non-neutral, POV-pushing charade of sayning that one of the dictionary definitions somehow "doesn't count" when we all KNOW it does. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, most sources do not consider the Bible factual. Also, that is a good candidate for the greatest generalisation I've ever seen - from one person posting on a Wikipedia talk page to the majority of intelligent, English-speaking people. Wow. Ben (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You just wrote: "Most sources do not consider the Bible factual". That's really what this whole argument keeps boiling down to: Whether or not it is "neutral" for Wikipedia to declare the Bible "not factual", and all those POVs who hold it factual to be mistaken and non-notable. I foresee that, to save confusion, perhaps we will eventually need a disclaimer like this:

Non-factual Worldviews:

Wikipedia has conclusively determined that the Judaeo-Christian scriptures are not factual, because most sources agree on this. Likewise, the Scriptures of Islam and Hinduism are hereby determined to be non factual; and these religions are, in fact, based on perverse errors and mere myths; those who adhere to them are all deluded simpletons. The Book of Mormon is also definitely not factual, and is declared utterly false, in accordance with NPOV. However, we've decided to hold off judgement on the principle texts of Buddhism such as the Lotus Sutra for now, for some of us agree that these may be factual. And as for other international doctrines, such as Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, and Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong, we could find nothing unfactual in them whatsoever; hence these worldviews are all hereby approved doctrines, that may be taken as historical. This policy has been defined as "neutrality" by consensus, because not even one person disagreed, after we blocked the editing privileges all those who dissented from this binding conclusion.

Is this kind of thing that is down the road for Wikipedia? I've got a better idea: How about you lay off this stealth effort to get your own favorite interpretation of world religions' scriptures endorsed by a neutral project, and instead acknowledge that you do not have a monopoly on opinion here? People are never suddenly going to all obediently start thinking the same way on a highly controversial subject, so why not elucidate what ALL the significant views and interpretations are, and properly attribute each one to those who hold them, rather than summarily declaring only one of them to be the "correct" worldview? (Which is exactly what WP:NPOV has said all this time). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Careful, I didn't say that the Bible does not contain factual information (which seems to be your implication here), I said the Bible is not considered factual by the majority of scholars. There is a difference. Anyway, according the Wikipedia's NPOV policy, we are required to reflect what the notable and reliable sources do. This isn't a place for you to advocate your point of view or oppose that neutrality. Ben (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

With regard to "reliable sources", all of our editors who specialize in reliable sources, will tell you there are more than enough already for the purpose of establishing that a) numerous sources have used the very word "mythology" to attack belief in the story, and unambiguously to assert it is false; and b) numerous other sources have responded to this idea by rejecting the term "mythology" as inappropriate. We cannot establish that one of these schools of thought is incorrect and the other correct; that is the most basic meaning of "neutrality", just like Switzerland being "neutral" means not taking sides. But the sources certainly establish that both of these viewpoints definitely exist and are widespread, if you doubt me just check with them at WP:RS/N. You are incorrect or overextending your prerogative, to declare all of the sources you don't like are "unreliable" for purposes of establishing that a viewpoint is widely held and significant to the article, just like the view of denominations regarding their own canons is "significant" enough to be mentioned neutrally in this particular article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I can only go off of what you have presented here, and from that, none of them have attacked belief, let alone used the word mythology to attack belief (your part a)), which mutes your part b) since it relies on part a) being true. If you didn't quite write what you meant in your part b), ie, you meant some authors did not consider mythology to be appropriate for any reason (not just the one you listed), then you must also show that this viewpoint is significant (this is required by WP:NPOV). Let me quote it here:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

You are welcome to try and establish this, but given the prolific use of the word mythology, by scholars, reliable and notable sources discussing this topic, by general references like Encyclopedia Britannica and the Oxford Dictionary of Religion, academic institutions in an educational environment, and even the media, I'm inclined to think it would be a futile effort. Trying instead to interpret neutrality in terms of Swiss law is just silly. Ben (talk) 20:19, 28 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)

I note that many multiple other editors are also on record as saying they don't find the term "mythology" necessary, and consider it over-the-top framing. I could make quite a long list of such editors, if I went back over the 3 years of this dispute. One would have to discount or disqualify many editors to pretend there is any unified consensus, which there isn't, and still less can we pretend that it is only one editor who has ever said this - not to mention the actual published sources that expressed similar objections. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:59, 29 December 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. ^rossnixon 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)
• Support - But perhaps you could say 'scripture' rather than 'mythology'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - First sentence needs to clearly imply that Noah's Ark is not considered factual. jwanders^Talk 16:47, 27 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 Wikipedia. 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)

• Support - 'Scriptures' is more neutral. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Good idea to expand to include Islamic scriptures (which does not have Genesis). ^rossnixon 01:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I never commented on this proposal, but it is a good idea, and seems grounded in past arb-com decisions. Just as "psychic" is "adequate epistemological framing" for the Jeane Dixon article, without having to prejudice readers with caveats like "paranormal" or whatever where the POVs are better explained at the article "psychic", the word "Scripture" is a very accurate and a very adequate epistemological framing here. The word "scripture" allows individual readers to make up their own minds, rather than have Wikipedia try to "inform" those who object to calling it "mythology" that their POV is "wrong" because the myth POV is simply "right". The Bible and Quran are books that are considered holy by millions, maybe billions, but the methodology of their opponents who are far from neutral is to expropriate the scriptures from these faiths, declare the faiths no better than "fringe", and dump their biases and opinions on them as if there were no argument. No matter how many sources prove that some people are offended by the term myth, the desire to offend some readers is seen by them as overriding true neutrality. And if you pretend that "myth" is not still today most widely used and perceived as an antonym of "historical", you're pretending something that isn't true. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:37, 22 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 [...] [a]nd sheep are accounted clean beasts [...] [s]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[s within Islam" that hold to a literal reading of the Ark. I'd go further, I think that the majority of Muslims, both ordinary folk and scholars, hols to the literal truth of the Koran. I'd be happy to change accordingly, but I leave it to you. PiCo (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article on literalism - Wikipedia is not an authority within the terms of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia Biblical literalist is viewed as a pejorative term (and thus not to be used, according to Wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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: [1] 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, Wikipedia'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, Wikipedia 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, wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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: wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [2] "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^{χαιρετε} 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[3]:

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 wikipedia 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. Continuing like this 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)

Actually, I'm not sure myself - I've never taken part in a MedCab case before. However, reading the comments over at the case's entry, I figured that your comments above seemed pretty pertinent. Anyway, I'll be following everyone else's lead here! Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 22:10, 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 [Selassie I University] 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 wikipedia 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 [4], [5]. 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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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)

Ben, if that is the case with what the WTA page is saying, why then can we not say "Christian belief" and "Hindu myth"? The reason is so obvious, and it is even spelled out on that page: because it is implying a POV. Now, as to finding "a single reference that claims people think Noah's Ark is not a myth" I doubt it would take long to find one. Here, let me try right now: inputting ["not mythology" noah genesis] into google. Hmm, 3rd result down looks promising, www.holytrinityparish.net/Links/Reclaiming%20GenesisIII.doc . Let's see... Very first sentence: "Reclaiming Genesis, Part III: In our 1st article we established that Genesis presents a historical narrative about real people, not mythology or fables." I haven't even read it any further, but it could get tedious listing all of the evidence that this viewpoint honest-to-god exists out there, if any amount would ever be good enough to convince you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Checking [genesis "not mythology"] on google-books now, for something more like a published ISBN source:

• [6] admits what wikipedia will not: "The Hebrew worldview in Genesis is theological history and not mythology" -- what does this mean?

I also see plenty of more published references here asserting that Genesis is NOT mythology. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A slightly different search turned this up: [7] The Christian author of this book firmly believes the Great Flood is "not a myth" and also that "it happened", because it is referred to as historical by Jesus Matt 24:37-39, and also in 1 Peter 3:20. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And this one [8] argues that Genesis is not even a "myth", by using your favoured definition, "for it does not tell us anything about what things were like when there were no things". Same passage is peer-reviewed here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Til, the first is some microsoft word document from a church, and they're equating myth with false (and somehow believe they proved Genesis is true, which is bunk). The second is a PhD dissertation. Did you read the footnote attached to that paragraph?

This question also concerns the historical character of the recorded events. The fact that the sagas experienced a long time of oral transmission before they were put down in writing casts doubt on the historical character of the narratives.

So they're not sympathetic to your literal view. With that in mind, it's not clear to me what they mean, and I don't feel like reading their dissertation to see what conventions they're using (a quick search wasn't helpful). The third, what the hell is this book?

The story goes on and on and on: Someone opens up the floodgates up there in Heaven and all mankind except for 8 people are entirely swept away. Gurgle! Gurgle! And they were gone. Genesis 6 The great Flood. It's not a myth, it happened.

There is bolding and underline all through it. It's one weird piece of work. Ahh, here we go, Xulon Press - Christian self publishers Xulon Press make Christian book publishing affordable for Christian authors and writers using print-on-demand technology. What a waste of a tree. For your fourth one, I think you actually hit something we could call reliable. But what on Earth does it mean?

The tendency is opposed by our fifth proposition: the creature, simply in that it is creature, has an absolute beginning. Genesis' story is not a myth for it does not tell us anything about what things were like when there were no things.

I'd ask you to enlighten me, but we need to give this a break, since Vassyana is going to have to try and read this. Cheers, Ben (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you asked for evidence that the belief really exists, not evidence that their belief is correct. Once you dismiss the "reliability" of all the evidence that the belief really exists, one by one, then you can go back to asserting that the belief does not exist, because there is no "reliable" evidence anyone at all really thinks this, and you can say I am "originally" making up the whole notion that some people really do think this. This has been going on forever. Of course many of these sources are arguing that "Genesis is not mythology", precisely because they wish to respond to other points of view that say it is mythology. But it's a fools game to try to find sources establishing that an opinion truly exists, for someone who is dead-set against that opinion and pre-biased against any possible source for it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the description of how the term myth is interpreted by some fundamentalist groups is most suitably discussed on the relevant Christian mythology page, which covers far more than we could hope to stuff into the lead. Ben: Looking at what I wrote I was not intending to imply the "myth=false" definition, just the "myth=religious narrative which may or may not be true", merely highlight that although this story is mythology, some people believe that mythology to be "historical fact". Was just simple wording to see what TE wanted in terms of clarification.

I would say that we can find any number of sources that use biblical reasons to state the Earth is flat, a global flood happened etc doesn't make it any less a discredited theory (thanks to science), if those opinions are significant enough to warrant mention it has to be given context and where appropriate the relevant evidence based views (to avoid promoting pseudoscience or out and out false information). As ben's pointing out just having a book printed doesn't mean it is peer reviewed by anyone knowledgeable in the relevant field. Peer reviewed by creationists does tend to set a low bar for "proof" (e.g. all boils down to "bible says so" or "god did it" which if accepted can be used as proof for any and all outlandish ideas). Anyhow, I agree.. Let's let Vassyana read what's there first. NathanLee (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh and TE: how the hell can you just be seeing the WTA policy on myth and legend? Ben and I have posted it up a tonne of times, including quoting it here on this talk page. It's the whole point we're trying to make and you've NEVER READ IT TIL NOW??? The policy states your definition should never be assumed or used (read it again, and perhaps a third time to properly understand why you're arguing against policy). Instead you pick out one sentence on there, blindly ignoring the surrounding sentences. Have you not bothered to read the mythology box, or any of the dictionary definitions also? I think it's pretty piss poor that you've been arguing all this time (2, 3 years you said) and this is the first time you've (half) read the policy on how the term is to be used!!! NathanLee (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Nathan, I read quite a lot, and spend much of my time reading, but you are very quick to condemn me. One thing I have read much on is "Wikipedia policy" and "Wikipedia style guidelines" and at least I, unlike you, do not confuse the two by calling a style guideline a 'policy". You are very quick to condemn me, but I haven't done anything wrong, and it appears you are resorting to your old tactics again of making this into a personal argument about me. Let me be perfectly clear this time: The ethics of this argument remain exactly the same, regardless of what you think of the editors involved.

And it's hard to believe you are actually bringing up the "Flat Earth" comparison yet again to make some kind of non-point. That comparison has been debunked so many times in so many ways by so many editors over the years, it's amazing you still are pushing that nonsense. But here is the debunking one more time: "The comparison with those who believe the Earth is flat is not a fitting comparison, because there is no sizable number of people in the world who believes the Earth is flat. Those who seriously believe the Earth is flat are far less than a fraction of a mil of a percent of the world's population, so it is not a significant viewpoint, and is yet another red herring comparison. Furthermore, there are no known denominations of Christians or Muslims who maintain the view that the Earth is flat, while several do indeed maintain the view that the Ark was historical." (Whether they think the flood was global or local, is another red herring question, the question is do they think the article subject, Noah's Ark, was historical in any form, and are these people entitled to be a "significant point of view" for NPOV policy purposes.) It's a true sign of desperation that you're trotting out these tired old fallacies one more time. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This is getting way off topic now. The whole point of this section was to gather reliable sources to see how they frame this subject. Arguing about what is discredited and about how many people believe different things is not doing that, imo. Ben (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And if it had been "discredited" to everyone's satisfaction, there would be no significant dispute of people claiming it isn't discredited at all, and would be more like the Flat Earth argument. But it wasn't "discredited" in any such compelling way, all we have are authoritative and magisterial voices claiming the authority to tell us what we may believe and what we may not believe is historical, based on their own dry, unproven hypotheses, in direct opposition to other authoritative voices (like those of our priests) telling us the exact opposite. You are still trying to make wikipedia take sides in the dispute by brushing off one of these two viewpoints as "insignificant". I still don't think that is a worthy argument. And no matter how innocent you claim the word "mythology" is, it is patently obvious by now that you mean to assert the Bible story is fictional. All of this semantic argument is just dressing to make your agenda seem "neutral". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:27, 15 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 [9] 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 wikipedia 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" [10], 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 [11]).
• 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 wikipedia policy states how the term is to be used: what's the argument for not using this common term that's used all over wikipedia 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 [Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology] 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 wikipedia etc. NathanLee (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Another reference: 'Noah's flood' kick-started European farming - Uses the term "Noah's ark myth", written by a university research team. BBC article uses the term myth: [12] NathanLee (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Response from Taiwanboi

I've stayed out of this to date, since I have no problem with the term 'mythology' being applied to this article (and I've made that clear more than once). However, when you say 'As the article says a literal interpretation was abandoned by scientists and biblical scholars back in the 19th century', that refers to the abandonment of the Biblical literalist interpretation of the flood, not an abandonment of the historicity of the Ark (in fact as the Biblical literalist interpretation of the flood was abandoned, belief in the historicity of the Ark did not suffer significantly). That aside, I'd seriously like to see you improve the language you use in this discussion. It really should be clear to you that phrases such as 'how the hell', 'piss poor', 'blindly ignoring', and 'spam up this page with the same crap over and over again', are not conducive to constructive discourse, and are certainly not WP:CIVIL. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That last comment was mine, and you're right, I shouldn't have called it crap. Though I still think Til's comments were bordering on spam at the time, for instance starting new threads to say 'Nuff said' and making no serious attempt at addressing any particular argument, I'll retract the whole comment. Cheers, Ben (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ben. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry my language is causing you distress, but this is assumed to be conversation between adults and those terms are common and I believe appropriate when dealing with an editor who, by own admission, "blindly ignored" links and quotes from those links and in doing so hasn't afforded myself or anyone else the courtesy expected in any sort of respectful and intelligent conversation (e.g. when someone essentially says "here's a link with the policy which is a solid part of the argument against you" a number of times, you'd think that would be the trigger to read. We got more unreferenced claims, personal thoughts and "crap"/"garbage" etc filling up the discussion page unnecessarily). I'm sorry, but I'm not going to find euphemisms or avoid calling out for what is, as far as wikipedia is concerned just noise. Personal opinion = crap. References = good. Refusing to read references and arguing relentlessly = "blindly ignoring" the good and "spamming" with garbage. If anyone should be offended here it's Ben and I for having tried to put forward reasoned, rational arguments and then have TE not even bother reading the stuff, insisting on arbitration/mediators rather than just reading. NathanLee (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with your language causing me 'distress'. It has to do with WP:CIVIL. Ben agrees with me, and has apologized for his comments and removed them. Plumbago also agrees with me. You simply launched a long-winded defense of why you intend to pay no attention to WP:CIVIL. If you can't abide by Wikipedia guidelines, you shouldn't be editing. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make it clear that my personal view that 'mythology' is an appropriate term for this article is non-partisan. It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs on the matter, one way or another. It's simply because as an information professional my task is always to catalog and categorize information in a manner which is most accessible to those attempting to find it, and I think people are more likely to look for Noah's Ark under 'mythology' than elsewhere. Having said which, it may be relevant that the Dewey Decimal Classification categorizes the Bible, mythology, and Judaism separately thus:

• 200 Religion & Mythology
• 220 Bible
• 292 Mythology
• 296 Judaism

Mythology is thus a subset of 'Religion', but distinct from the Bible and Judaism. When I used to work in libraries, I had to catalogue the Bible separately from mythology, according to the Dewey Decimal Classification. Likewise, if I was adding subject terms from the Library of Congress Classification, I would have to place Noah's Ark under 'Class B -- Philosophy, Psychology, Religion', with the subheadings 'Religion', 'Bible', and 'Judaism'. In the LCC, 'Mythology' is a category separate from 'religion'. Again, if I was using the Library of Congress Subject Headings (another classification system), I would have to use 'Ark, Noah's', and would probably also use 'Old Testament', and 'Bible', but 'Mythology' is a separate subheading (it would be my choice as to whether or not to add that heading). --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the notion that mythology is linked with and also contained within religion, but still distinct is consistent with the encyclopaedic entries on it and definitions from dictionaries I've come across. TE was arguing at one stage that mythology was a synonym for "dead religion", but that was just based on an (apparently isolated) quote, not a definition. Bible = book containing ideology, rituals, philosophy, stories and mythology. I think also (along lines of, as you say, finding the thing) that if we look at similar stories, there's no reason to have this one separate or not called mythology for some reason. e.g. this is one of many stories about floods that collectively make up "deluge or flood mythology", and is the same in nature to other stories of a spiritual/religious/supernatural nature. As for whether this needs the term in it: it's an easy distinguishing word which clearly classifies this story as such. NathanLee (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for not addressing anything I wrote. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Response from Plumbago

I've little to add that's not repetitive of that already articulated by NathanLee and Ben. Since it is the primary OED definition, and is eminently source-able in reliable academic journals (not to mention more popular sources such as those identified above), the term "myth" is the most appropriate and accurate descriptor for Noah's Ark. Just by way of some recent examples pulled from the ISI Web of Knowledge ... [*]

• Grandjean, D., Rendu, A.C., MacNamee, T., Scherer, K.R. (2008). The wrath of the gods: appraising the meaning of disaster. SOCIAL SCIENCE INFORMATION SUR LES SCIENCES SOCIALES 47, 187-204. Abstract: Beginning with the Flood story from ancient Mesopotamia, which is related to similar Biblical and Greek accounts, we focus on the genre of disaster myths ...
• Gertz, V.J.C. (2007). Noah and the prophets - Reception and reformulation of an old oriental myths. DEUTSCHE VIERTELJAHRSSCHRIFT FUR LITERATURWISSENSCHAFT UND GEISTESGESCHICHTE 81, 503-522. Abstract: The first literary expression of the myth of the flood is the Atrahasis Epic ...
• Yanko-Hombach, V., Gilbert, A.S., Dolukhanov, P. (2007). Controversy over the great flood hypotheses in the Black Sea in light of geological, paleontological, and archaeological evidence. QUATERNARY INTERNATIONAL 167, 91-113. Abstract: Legends describing a Great Flood are found in the narratives of several world religions, and the biblical account of Noah's Flood is the surviving heir to several versions of the ancient Mesopotamian Flood Myth ...
• Padhy, S. (2006). Ethnobiological analysis from myth to science VII: Human endeavour for conservation of biodiversity at the juncture of dissolution, as reflected in religious epics of east and west. Journal of Human Ecology 20, 301-308. Abstract: Mythical facts narrated in Indian epic Srimad Bhagawata and Bible convey a co-ordinated message, that at some time the earth faced dissolution with heavy rain and flood ...

As already described above, the counter sources provided by Til Eulenspiegel are extremely limited in number and of debatable reliability. All that they appear to confirm is that some (many?) people interpret the word "myth" to mean "fiction" and act accordingly. It would be original research for Wikipedia to invent a descriptor to replace the extant "myth". Furthermore, I would argue that whatever we replace "myth" with would then be interpreted (probably by the same people) as meaning "fiction" and we'd be back to where we started.

In passing, I would second Taiwan boi's remarks about civility. I've only sporadically been in the trenches on this discussion, and haven't done my share of the running to facilitate the debate, but we need to stay cool if we're to resolve this one (to be fair, in spite of the occasional jibe, we've yet to breach Godwin's law). --PLUMBAGO 17:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

[*] I should add that these may not be the most appropriate cites - to say the least, I'm not a scholar of history. They are simply the first I came to on a basic search of titles and abstracts.

Thanks for your contributions. What do you think of the treatment of religion and mythology in the classification schema I have cited above? --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You want more references this significant POV really does exist?

• "Thus we read in the Biblical story that God locks the boat after Noah and his company are safely aboard, which contrasts with the Babylonian version in which Utnapishtim locks the door himself. Or again, and the end of the Flood, we read that "God smelled the sweet savor," a clear echo of the Babylonian scene in which "the gods crowded like flies around the sacrificer." Neither scene in the one version can be said to be "more elevated" in conception than its counterpart in the other version. Yet both versions are internally consistent with their respective theological approach. The Biblical scenes are not mythological, they are only extremely personal or anthropomorphized." - Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East‎ (2000) by Frederick E. Greenspahn p 374

The conclusion that the story is not a myth is arrived at because two stories are similar. The ark story developed from (is later than) the Gilgamesh Epic, so it is not at all surprising that it would contain different (and more) detail. Indeed, the fact that the ark story is slightly less 'fanciful' and more 'specific' (measurements, etc) than the gilgamesh epic (details other than those in the source above) also suggests a later version of the same story by slightly more advanced people. It is indeed true that the story has been adopted to suit the writer's own religious views, but this doesn't support the conclusion that it is not mythological.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro, it has been determined by arbcom time and again, that sources used to establish that a significant POV exists, are used only to establish that a significant POV exists. Going through and offering your own arguments and quarrels with each and every one of the published sources used for this purpose, is a red herring. I have never argued that any of these people have proved their point. But taken together, they ARE reliable for purposes of establishing that many authors have objected, for whatever reason, to the epistemological classification of this story as "mythology". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Consider next the Bible's account of the Flood in Genesis 7:17-24. Sound interpretation shows that the text is describing real events and a real person, Noah. It is not myth. But the text describes things as they would appear to a human observer like Noah. Everything within range of human observation was covered with water, and all the animals within human range died." -- Three Views on Creation and Evolution (1999), various authors, p. 92.

Level of detail does not determine the difference between fiction and non-fiction. No basis is provided in the source above for establishing why it is not a myth. Star Wars is not real simply because it presents a structured sequence of events. The lifespans presented in the story are not realistic, and along with other aspects, rely on 'excuses' for how they are 'possible'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Long before Newton, in the Book of Genesis, we have a description of light being broken into its spectrum of color, by tiny droplets in the atmosphere - a rainbow. The story, though often told to children, is not a mythical tale. The great flood catastrophe really did happen. The evidences it has left in the Earth are still there to verify the fact. Noah had been in the Ark for 370 days..." - Beginnings: The Sacred Design (2000) by Bonnie Gaunt, p. 84

An attempt at an appeal to authority, this source destroys its own argument. Because early humans didn't understand refraction, they incorporated a fanciful explanation for rainbows into their mythology. The conclusion is, in fact, completely absurd, unless it intends to mean that understanding refraction is a prerequisite for seeing rainbows.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Who Mythed the Boat?" Most evangelical Christians have been shocked by the recent announcement made by one of our large church denominations about revising all of their Sunday School lessons. The aim, according to their proponents, is to make the Bible more acceptable to modern scientific minds. With this lofty purpose in view, they will now teach their pupils that the story of creation recorded in Genesis is a myth. The story of Noah's Ark is said to be a fairy tale. They tell us that David did not really kill Goliath, and further state that the glorious account of the Virgin Birth is nothing more than a myth. It really looks as if these people may have "mythed the boat". It would be difficult to convince Noah of any myth about it. He not only spent one hundred and twenty years constructing it, but he was the captain who navigated it along a shoreless sea for a long period of time. The people who mythed the boat in Noah's day, mythed everything..." - Sword Scrapbook (1980) by Viola Walden, p. 215

This source uses its own conclusion as its basis for recommending belief in its conclusion. Additionally, it uses the term 'navigated', to make the story seem a little more advanced, though the story does not say that it did anything more than merely float (undirected).--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We keep seeing the fallacy that these viewpoints are inadmissible for various reasons, such as all those who believe the Bible / Quran is not myth are a priori wrong, therefore they are not entitled to have any significant point of view. This argument amounts to defamation of religion, as does the argument that we must declare the Bible to be a myth. Another fallacy used to deny these opinions is that many of them contrast the term "mythical" etc. with "real" or "historical", thus they are probably using the "wrong definition". (Even though this "Wrong definition" appears in all reliable dictionaries, and is attested far older than the supposedly "scholarly" ie revisionist definition of the word.) However, it would also be easy to demonstrate that nearly all published examples of "scholarly" arguments that Noah's Ark is a myth, from Voltaire, through Karl Marx, and definitely up to the present day, are indeed using the term "myth" exactly to imply that it is non-historical and fictional. In other words, the words "myth" / "mythical" / "mythology" are words that have been used for centuries to tar the Bible and the Quran and those who adhere to their historicity, and now they are expected to trustingly accept that it is suddenly benign when this terminology is forced down Wikipedia's throat. It is precisely because there are so many publications even in the present day clearly asserting their opinion that the Bible is fictional, by using these very same terms, that so many authors for the opposing opinion feel compelled to write these defenses of their faith and say in no uncertain terms "No, we do not agree that it is mythological". The problem now is that those who would defame these people's right to choose what to believe, would also deny them any voice to speak for themselves and deny them the right to an opinion, instead declaring their own opinion on the epistemology of the Bible / Quran to be the "ultimate truth". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The nature of these kinds of references is what makes them unsuitable, containing poor argumentation and illogical conclusions. They are unacceptable entirely on their own merits, not because of any a priori conclusion. Another false allegation here is that of declaring "the Bible to be a myth". Parts of the bible are mythological, parts are historically accurate. The bible is a compilation of many separate writings; treating them as 'all true' (merely because some old guys decided so 1600 years ago) is just as arrogant as treating them as 'all false'. Regarding the use of the word 'myth', it can describe an event that might have happened (usually with alterations to the story), but for which there is no proof. This same usage is applied to the term, 'urban myth' - modern stories, which might conceivably have occurred, but for which no specific evidence of a particular incident exists.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, excellent. I was just thinking we need another thread ... <sigh>

Ok, First book:

Talks about the original Babylonian myth, then ...

As the basic elements of the original tale were assimilated by Israelite tradition they were naturally and spontaneously harmonized with the Israelite cosmic view. Elements which were incompatible with this view disappeared of their own accord.

Just noting here from our own article,

Anthropomorphism is the attribution of uniquely human characteristics to non-human creatures and beings, natural and supernatural phenomena, material states and objects or abstract concepts.

After some more reading of the article in this book, it seems to rate the story even less than a myth. Not only does it attribute the original to the Babylonian myth, but he argues that they've made it so personal to appeal to their own tastes that it can not even be held to be a myth anymore, just an extremely personal or anthropomorphised version of the original. Now, I don't know how widely held that view is, but going into this much detail for the first sentence of the article is absurd, and it seems a little more extreme than simply introducing the story as a myth in our first sentence.

Second book:

You really need to read your chosen sources properly, not mindlessly sift google books for the phrase you want. This is called quote mining, right? Anyway, from the same book, all on the same page (I didn't bother reading further, though it seemed like a collection essays):

The Bible seems to teach that there was a global flood in the days of Noah. This was the universal teaching of the Fathers of the church.

Every Christian from the founding of the church until the advent of modern science believed Noah was a real person. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches venerate Noah as a saint with the other patriarchs.

Modern naturalistic science has found no room for a flood, global or local. Many Christians, even those otherwise quite conservative, suggest the Noah story is a myth. It contains important theological truth, but no history. The church was wrong. Noah never existed.

Third and fourth books:

I think we should stick to the serious stuff. I will note that the fourth book mentioned seems to argue in favour of our article using what we've suggested ...

Most evangelical Christians have been shocked by the recent announcement made by one of our large church denominations about revising all of their Sunday School lessons. The aim, according to their proponents, is to make the Bible more acceptable to modern scientific minds. With this lofty purpose in view, they will now teach their pupils that the story of creation recorded in Genesis is a myth.

A group of evangelical Christians feelings should not influence this article. Anyway, this stuff is not to be taken seriously:

The great flood catastrophe really did happen. The evidences it has left in the Earth are still there to verify the fact.

and

He not only spent one hundred and twenty years constructing it, but he was the captain who navigated it along a shoreless sea for a long period of time.

That people believe this utterly amazes me, but that's not the point of this discussion. We need to address your sources for what they are Til, and anyone who asserts the above simply can not be taken seriously.

I'm not going to pick apart the rest of your post, though if there are any points in particular you that you would like me to address then feel free to highlight them in your next post and I'll be happy to.

It seems the same old problem remains. You're still associating myth with falsehood. I really think this is still going on because you believe Noah was the real deal, and want the article to be as sympathetic to your views as you can get away with. That's not how this project should work. The myth/false association is not supposed to occur in the context of an encyclopaedia. In an informal context, yes, for instance, when talking about urban myths. This is dictated by the WTA article that I linked, and since you've read that now, there really should be no argument. If you feel that the word myth does not belong in an encyclopaedia, you really need to to take that up somewhere other than the talk page of a single article, since the word is used prolifically throughout Wikipedia.

I don't think any more progress can be made on this. I'm sick of reading pages and pages, determining reliability, etc, from books that Til has 'phrase mined' from google books in a few minutes. That's not research. It's a lazy personal bias desperately clinging onto any piece of text it can to try and influence an article in its favour. The truly ridiculous thing here is that Til is acting as if everyone here has argued that the myth be explained as false in the first sentence, when in actual fact the word mythology leaves room for everyone's own interpretation. I'd really like Vassyana to come back and give his/her take on this before more threads spill out. Ben (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ben, the sources are serious. They are not saying that Noah's Ark isn;t a myth as a joke. They are saying it because they sincerely believe it isn't a myth, and they take offense that scholars insist it is a myth. This goes to the very core of what WP:NPOV is about, and I will take this all the way to arbcom if neccesary to ensure that you cannot pretend that this widespread POV doesn't exist, doesn't count, or continue to pillory me and single me out as if I had made it all up myself. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to find any sources disagreeing that Noah's Ark should be called "mythology" and told that without references, I was making this POV up myself. Then when I look for, and find references saying exactly the same thing, I am accused of "quote mining". You couldn't ask for any references that state this POV more explicitly than the published sources I have found so far. But no vast number of references expressing this POV and proving it exists, could ever be enough to override the POV-pushing, anti-religious agenda some editors have of getting Wikipedia to declare that the Bible and Quran "simply are" mythology -- or at least, of getting Wikipedia to make a Nicea-like determination of which parts of the Quran and Bible must be considered "Mythology". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We all knew already that you consider people of faith, and their viewpoints, to be illegitimate -- even when surveys suggest a majority of Americans think the Ark was real. So it's not really surprising, and expected even, that you would brush off any published expression of this viewpoint as similarly illegitimate, while at the same time demanding that I find sources suggesting that the viewpoint exists, to prove I didn't just invent it myself. That's why finding any reference that would satisfy you seems like an impossible task, or as I said before, a fool's game. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing two issues once again, so I'm going to carefully try and separate them once and for all. Just to clarify before I continue, the whole point of all of this discussion was to frame the subject and accurately establish some context for readers, based on reliable sources. The first issue: The point of view that the Noah's Ark story is historical, which no-one has claimed does not exist, is nothing more than a distraction here. We do not need to establish points of view so early on in the article, we can do this later on in the article (and is already done). The second issue: Establishing context for readers. We emulate the reliable sources, and they classify Noah's Ark as mythology. Now here is where you have consistently confused the issues: You relate mythology with falsehood, and this muddles the two issues. You have been linked to a Wikipedia guideline that strongly advises against relating mythology to falsehood, so can you stop doing that?

• If you feel the guideline is wrong, take it up on that page.
• If you feel the reliable sources are wrong, Conservapedia would love to hear from you.

Even forgetting reliability for a second, you have provided almost no sources that make sense and don't assume the same relationship between mythology and falsehood. The first condition is common sense. The second condition follows from the WTA page. The only decent source you have submitted that supports that "Noah's Ark is not a myth" was the first book in this section. It still largely agreed with the other reliable sources given, in that the story was derived from earlier myths, but sought to demote it from myth status. Seemed a little harsh to me, and too complicated for the intro. All you've done is 'phrase mined' google books - you didn't even read the surrounding text, let alone get a feel for the book to see why your phrase of choice was used. Do your argument a favour. Explain to us, while keeping the 'two issues' separate, why everyone else's sources, including the Encyclopedia Britannica article, aren't suitable guidelines for us to use in establishing context for readers here. If you can't do that, I feel there is nothing left to discuss. Ben (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No, what you have just said is entirely wrong and mischaracterizing what I said; you are resorting now to the logical fallacy of attacking a strawman. My position is not, and never has been, that "the Noah's Ark story is historical, which no-one has claimed does not exist". I am well aware that there are many POV sources claiming it does not exist. The sources claiming it does exist are equally POV. Similarly for the sources that claim it should be categorized as "mythical", versus those who explicitly claim it should not. This is a classic dispute between what "Your books" say, and what "Our books" say. When that happens, we are required use the most neutral approach, which is: give space to explaining both POVs without writing as if one school of thought is proven correct and the other school of thought proven incorrect. As might be expected, you are claiming a priority for "your books" over "our books" to characterize the epistemoogy of the primary source, which itself presents itself as reality, not mythology. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

From earlier: you cannot pretend that this widespread POV doesn't exist -- Til and just now: which itself presents itself as reality, not mythology -- Til. A strawman was it? My comment about you muddling the two issues and request that you discuss the sources we have presented still stands. And I can't believe you're trying to introduce this into the article now without even waiting for the medcab to finish. This is a joke. Ben (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Except, TE, you are mischaracterizing NPOV. We do not have to treat both POVs regarding the definition of "Myth" as equal. One is a widely-used scholarly definition, which is appropriate to the context of the article, and for which no acceptable alternative exists, yet you want to keep it out of the article because of the alternate definition. That is not NPOV. We are not required to treat two definitions as equal when they are not, because we are not supposed to give equal weight to every viewpoint.

As others have said, linking the term to the appropriate article for a further explanation, as well as possibly placing the disclaimer box at the top, is a reasonable accommodation, in order to properly define the term in the context of the article. Removing the word altogether is not. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As TE says in his header to this thread, his point is simply that this view of the Ark (real, not fictional) exists. He's right of course. We used to have a Gallup poll statistic in the article to the effect that some 60% or American's believed in a literal ark. That should be enough to establish both the importance of the view and the background of those who hold it (i.e., it's a popular view, not a scholarly one). PiCo (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that has nothing to do with whether the story is mythical in nature or not. Myth is a class of narrative, which Noah's Ark easily falls under. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 00:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

TE is making the point that it's not for us to decide whether the story is or is not a myth - we just reflect notable. At a popular level, there's a sizable number of Americans (far fewer Europeans and Brits) who regard it as history. At the scholarly level, few if any academic scholars would regard it that way - but I should point out that they don't usually call it a myth, either. As TE's first book makes clear, they regard it as a theological narrative - Jacobsen calls it "mythic history". "Fiction" and "fact" aren't the only options. PiCo (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Best Book as "Not Relevant"

I added the following text and it was removed:

For example, historian Robert Best wrote a book proposing the theory that Noah was originally a historical king of Shuruppak named Ziusudra, who would have reigned c. 2900 BC, and that the "Ark" was a beer, livestock and grain barge on the Euphrates River. Robert M. Best, Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic, 1999.

This was removed by Ben Tillman who thinks that it is irrelevant. This is about Noah's Ark, so how is it "not relevant"? Oh , wait, all this historian did was publish a book about Noah's Ark, but we have wikipedia editors who are better qualified to give a critique of his opinion and deem it "irrelevant", because they are superior scholars to the published author. The big irony here is that the subtitle of the book even refers to it as the "Flood Myth". I am well aware that some scholars use the term, but I just don't think it is very neutral for us to endorse that assessment, when so many other sources and churches, etc., expressly disagree with the word. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You added it to a section on seaworthiness. Ben (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Not so much a matter of relevance as of weight - how important/influential is Best's book? PiCo (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Best's work is referenced by the following works:

• Hidden History: Lost Civilizations, Secret Knowledge, and Ancient Mysteries
• The History Puzzle: How We Know What We Know about the Past‎
• Stars, Stones and Scholars
• Current Contents (Institute For Scientific Information)
• Antiquity (journal)
• As a text in the reference bibliography on studies of the Ancient Near East at the University of North Texas

Looks relevant and notable. --Taiwan boi (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone missed my point. Yes it followed from the previous sentence, it may be relevant to the article as a whole and notable enough for inclusion. However, my problem with it was that it didn't seem relevant enough to seaworthiness to include it in that section. That's all there was to my objection :) Ben (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Refocus

It's been pretty clearly established that there are sources with a variety of views and nuances. That leads us to the question of how to handle the sources available. A few comments: NPOV bears no direct relation to how popular a view may be, how many people hold it, whether or not views are offensive to people, or any other similar considerations. (A prime example are science articles. We don't present the common (mis)conceptions of science. We present science topics as they appear in reliable sources.) The policy is directly founded on how reliable sources as a whole treat a topic, rather than other measures. For example, how much relative space we give to a view within an article should be proportional to its occurance in reliable sources. Please also note that in common practice that sources with greater reliability are accorded greater weight. That said, is there a overwhelming majority view among the sources in general? Is there such a view among the most reliable sources? What is the minority view? Is it a significant minority or a small minority? Do any of the views correlate to specific POVs? If so, which views and what POVs are they attached to? Vassyana (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Only one relevant view has been presented. It has been demonstrated that scholars classify Noah's Ark as mythology. Other sources have been presented that classify the story as historical. Unfortunately, the second group of sources tend to use the word mythology to mean not historical or false, and this makes it seem as if there are two views. It's unfortunate that this 'double meaning' of the word exists, just as it is unfortunate that the word theory has a double meaning. But in a scholarly context, only one of the definitions of these words is considered. Ben (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This demonstrates what I'm up against. "Only one relevant point of view has been presented". No religion or faith will ever qualify as the least bit legitimate to have a valid opinion in his book, he will never agree to one iota of compromise; he goes, firebrand in hand, against all those opinions he disagrees with and persecutes, persecutes, persecutes. He is the judge and the jury and the executioner all rolled into one. WP:NPOV will never be achieved with such mentality. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I've found a book that directly deals with development of the word myth over the last 150 years or so, as opposed to sources (reliable or otherwise) that just use a phrase. I didn't expect to find something that addressed this issue so directly (any more than I would expect to find a mathematics book that went into detail about the uses of the words "proposition", "lemma" and "theorem", for instance), so I'm actually pretty happy to have something so concrete to present. The Bible Without Theology by Robert A. Oden, ISBN 025206870X, 9780252068706. I've read chapters two, three and the beginning of chapter four. It turns out that the "Bible does not contain mythology" stance is rooted in a definition of the word by the Brothers Grimm. Much has changed since then, and I'd love to type out a summary of what I've read, but I'll get to the point. The beginning of chapter four sums up where we are today:

As we have seen, the course of twentieth-century research has yielded the increasingly more certain conclusion that there is mythical material in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Interestingly, however, for many years this conclusion was seen to apply primarily or solely only to certain small sections within the Bible. These sections were essentially those for which an obvious parallel could be found among the mythological collections of ancient Israel's neighbors — the myths of Mesopotamia, Canaan, and Egypt. Of course, such parallels have appeared with unanticipated frequency because of the archaeological discoveries of the past few generations, so that even limiting the application of the label myth to those biblical narratives with ancient Near Eastern analogies has produced a fairly large pool of material. Today, it is not just the flood story in Genesis 6-9 or allusions to a battle between Yahweh and a cosmic monster (in Job, for example) that are seen as mythical. Included, too, are the portraits of Yahweh in the setting of a divine council (as in Psalm 82 or 2 Kings 22), any number of references to a cosmic mountain (in Ezekiel and several Psalms especially), and much more.

We have an article on Robert A. Oden, so you are welcome to check it out to assess reliability. Among other degrees, he has a master’s of theology degree from Harvard. These days he is the president of Carleton College, which according to the 2008 U.S. News and World Report rankings, ranks as the #8 liberal arts college in the United States, and also currently holds a faculty appointment in the religion department at Carleton. From his biography, from 1975 to 1989, Oden was a religion professor at Dartmouth, where he received Dartmouth’s first Distinguished Teaching Award. He is the author of five books, including The Bible Without Theology, and scores of scholarly articles. Anyway, there is plenty more information out there about him. For a book that has only been out since 2000, it has plenty of reputable cites according to google scholar. I didn't look too hard for reviews (there are some snippets on Amazon). If this doesn't settle this issue, I can't imagine anything else will. Cheers, Ben (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

I am asking this as a separate question in order to keep the conversation as orderly as possible. Bear in mind that these questions should be answered with an eye towards finding some middle ground. What are the best points raised by editors of the "opposing" position to your own? What point(s) are you most willing to concede or be flexible regarding in the interests of finding an agreeable compromise? On a related but distinct note, what compromise(s) do you think would be most appropriate? Vassyana (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, we are not looking down two sides of a fence, there is a confused definition that adds another dimension to this problem. I am not willing to concede to using an unscholarly definition of the word mythology, that is, I object to using the word mythology to imply falsehood. Since most scholars consider the Noah's Ark story mythology, I also object to this project shying away from the word. I think it is unfortunate that there is a "double meaning", but like the word theory, there is no confusion in the context of an encyclopaedia or other scholarly works. In terms of finding middle ground, I see no problem with noting, and discussing, that Noah's Ark is considered by some to be historical. Ben (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the compromise I proposed, but it was not acceptable to Ben Tillman:

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.

Nathan Lee then proposed this compromise, which I accepted, but once again, it was unacceptable to Ben Tillman, because nothing short of Wikipedia authoritatively declaring its determination that Genesis "simply is" mythology, no room for argument, will ever be acceptable to him.

"Regarded as myth by all but some fundamentalist Christians who believe it to be true."

Because of the uncompromising nature of his anti-Bible position, we are forced to take it to arb-com. This makers sense, given what they ruled in 2007 about what is "adequate" for the intro of the Jean Dixon article, this is at least as big a controversy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

How about you lay off the ad hominem arguments? As I said, I have no problem in noting and discussing that some people consider it historical. One of my two objections is to using the word mythology in an unscholarly way to do this, and both propositions above do this. Ben (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

To explain my above reference a bit more, in 2007 the arb com ruled that it is "adequate epistemological framing" to describe Jeane Dixon simply as a psychic, with a link to that article, without getting into a bunch of scientific caveats in the intro about how it is classified as "paranormal", etc. Similarly, several editors on this page have stated that it should be adequate to describe a Bible story as being within Genesis without further classifying it with caveats, especially ones that are "external terms". I'm just noting the parallels. The main difference is that apparently belief in the Ark is far more widespread. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If we are to use that arbcom ruling as a model, then we should introduce Noah's Ark simply as Judeo-Christian and Islamic mythology, with links to those articles, without getting into a bunch of Judeo-Christian and Islamic caveats about which book Judeo-Christian and Muslims find sacred it is contained in and whether it is real or not. Oh wait, I've been suggesting that all along. Ben (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean you don't think it matters for the intro to mention whether or not this story is in Genesis? You can't be serious... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be mentioned in the introductory sentence. Where it is found is less important than what it is.

Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it. - WP:LEAD

Genesis is way too specific, mythology is much more general and places the subject into context by pre-pending which religions find it sacred. Recall my suggestion from the RFC above:

In Judeo-Christian and Islamic mythology, Noah's Ark was a large vessel ...

Please read the RFC above if you haven't already. Ben (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I'm happy to make a further concession. I was originally against using the {{myth box}}, but many people on this talk page have suggested its use. If the above wording is used, I'll support including it in the article to explain to readers what we mean when we use the term mythology. Since Til is worried about the term implying false, this solution guarantees no confusion when readers come to this article, and we still abide by the terminology used throughout the reliable sources. What do you think, Til? Ben (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No. I have found citations, as requested, demonstrating that many authors have specifically objected to labelling this as mythology, for various reasons. And there are several branches of Christianity and Islam that specifically object to labelling any part of the Bible or Quran respectively as "mythology". Then we have a gang of bullying editors, many of them proudly self-described militant atheists on their home pages, who pretend themselves to be neutral, but have such a skewed way of applying definitions, that they do not think the groups holding this story to be canonical are in the least significant, because their sources are "right", and any sources written from the standpoint of faith in these texts are "wrong", and because their agenda is blatantly to disqualify this widespread point of view from existing and redefine the entire Bible and the Quran as "myth". No, this is definitely one for arb-com. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again you muddle two issues.

• No-one has objected to this article discussing groups that hold this myth to be historical (let alone canonical). Personally I welcome it.
• Everyone here waited patiently for the medcab you requested to start, and then happily participated in it, going out of their way to find and discuss many reliable sources, from easily accessible sources like the Encyclopaedia Britannica to academic papers on the subject.
• As a result of the above, the reliable sources have been demonstrated to overwhelmingly use the term mythology.
• Also as a result of the above, a consensus has emerged in favour of using the term mythology.
• The sources you presented are almost all unreliable, a consequence of 'phrase mining' google books without going to the trouble of checking reliability. The one that was reliable discussed at length that the story was derived from earlier Babylonian mythology, and that it shouldn't be called a myth because it had been so personalised by the Israelites. This may be worth discussing in the article if that position is indeed weighty enough (hard to gauge with only one source offering this position thus far), but is way too complicated for an introductory sentence. WP:LEAD and the arbcom case you referenced are consistent with this position.
• With the myth box, it would be impossible for people to get the wrong impression from this article.
• Your reasoning for not using the term has not remained consistent throughout this discussion, giving the impression you just don't like it.
• And if your past paragraph is representative of your position (and it seems to me it is), it boils down to an ad hominem argument and consistently threatening 'further action'.

I really don't think you have a case. Ben (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

One of your repeated themes from the beginning is that you don't think I have a case, Ben Tillman. You have to realize that it is not your decision. I am entitled to due process, and there is far from any consensus, only your repeated declaration that your sources are right because my sources don't count, or you presume to disqualify them. Your head is so far in your atheist POV that you cannot acknowledge other POVs than your own have a right to exist. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Please tone down the personal language. Focus on the content. Avoid commenting about the supposed motivations or personal characteristics of other editors. Vassyana (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Here's a suggested draft for the lede, based on the history of comments and good practice. Edits made:

• Dropped: All refs. References should be avoided in the lede. Almost everything in the lede should be supported in the body of the article. For example, the explanatory note should be material addressed in the body of the article. Particularly of concern is the use of outdated and questionable references. This article is labelled as an FA, but it would be unlikely to pass a FAR. This particular issue is illustrative of the problems that would preclude the article from FA status.
• Added: I added the myth box, per various comments and suggestions.
• Revision: I've tried going over the various opinions espoused about the general characterization of the article and presenting the topic in the lede. I've done my best to accomodate everyone as much as possible. I tried to clean up and pare down the phrasing as well. If I've failed to address your concerns appropriately, or have caused new concerns, please do not hesitate to communicate your reservations.

This is just an attempt to make a version that might be acceptable for almost everyone involved. It might be a flawed attempt. Thoughts?

Feedback

Thanks Vassyana, and let me say I'm glad that some progress is being made. Although I can't remember it being discussed so much, it's good that some other texts are now mentioned in the lead. We have some repetition in the first and third paragraphs now, so we could probably rearrange what is there to keep things together a bit more. Also, it seems to me that what the story is about is much more important than whether or not certain groups hold it to be historical, so it feels a little awkward to read the latter information first. I don't think that is such an important issue though, so I won't debate it if others think the ordering is fine or not worth worrying about the way it is now. Overall, these are pretty minor issues with quick fixes (if others think they need to be fixed). I'm about to crash, so I'll do that and let others give some feedback before starting any discussion about these points. Cheers, Ben (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

So how long will it be before Wikipedia "determines" that "neutrality" means declaring many articles like Resurrection of Jesus are indisputably "mythology", just to appease the editors pushing the militant atheist POV, and using the very same POV argument? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A wide variety of sources classify the tale of the Ark as part of Judeo-Christian mythology, not just those limited to a strong atheist POV. Rather than casting doubt on the motivations of other editors, please comment on the proposed draft. How does it best accomodate your concerns? How does it fail to accomodate your concerns? What changes could be made to improve the draft or better represent significant views of the topic? Vassyana (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My question above has not been answered. What assurance is there that the self-described atheist editors who are pushing their POV that the Ark is a "myth", will not proceed to the rest of the Bible, Quran, and anything else they want to paint this way, armed with precisely the same one-sided pseudo-arguments, and blindly ignoring all the published references that establish that opposing POVs are widespread? No assurance whatsoever, that's what. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Making broad conspiratorial assumptions is generally discouraged. Regardless, such comments are unhelpful. Please focus on the content discussion at hand. I cannot help resolve the dispute if content questions are sidestepped for bad faith assumptions and accusations. Vassyana (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And still, no kind of assurance whatsoever that exactly what I just said will not happen. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to speculate or debate about broader issues. I am here to discuss and try to help with this specific article and content dispute. Unless you are willing to focus your energy and contributions towards the productive discussion of this article, there is nothing I can do as a mediator to help settle this dispute. Vassyana (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

From the beginning, you asked how the Ark is treated in "reputable sources". But apparently, only those sources that treat it as "mythology" were considered "reputable" -- while any sources establishing that others, including whole denominations, specifically object to this label, or may even consider it canonical, are immediately stigmatized from the start as "disreputable" as a result of the bias. Thus it is a circular argument. I have been asked to do the impossible: find sources for the literalist viewpoint, but that aren't sources for the literalist viewpoint. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

How does the draft, which includes the prominent "myth box", fail to address your concerns? How could it be altered to better allay your objections? What general comments do you have about the suggested draft? Vassyana (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, your draft starts out endorsing the view that this has been indisputably "proven" to be "Christian mythology" and "Islamic mythology". But there is a dispute, and it can be and has been documented. Moreover, the story is common to Abrahamic religions beside Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, so instead of describing it as "In Judeo-Christian and Islamic mythology...", it should be sufficient, and more accurate and informative, just to say "In Abrahamic religions..." I will never be convinced that using a term so many have specifically objected to, is an absolute necessity, when so many more neutral options and wordings exist. This is best left in the realm of religion, not mythology. Let individual readers make up their own mind what they think of religion, instead of "informing" them that the opinion holding religion and mythology to be one and the same was supposedly "correct" all along. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Til, I've revised the opening. Ben, I've removed the duplicate mention. What can be further done to improve the draft? Til, is the handling of the mythology question better in this presentation? Ben, is the overall ordering and flow of information better? (Talk:Noah's Ark/suggestion) Vassyana (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that actually sounds much more reasonable, since a slightly stronger argument can be made that the Ark "features prominently in" mythology. It definitely sounds more NPOV. However, wouldn't it be fair to add "although some have objected to this classification, especially literalists"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look over it again. I'm glad it's looking improved. Ben? What are your comments? Vassyana (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, I like the way the current article explains in a footnote about how the more obscure sources give further details like cannibalism. That hasn't even been part of this or any disputes, so I hope we don't have to change that? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That kind of material is usually best left to the body of the article. We can merge it into the main body when the protection expires. Sound good? Vassyana (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough then, we'll just have to find the right place to merge it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the sentence saying it "features prominently in" mythology would flow better in the 3rd para, joined to the sentence "The story has been subject to extensive elaboration". In other words, "The story has been subject to extensive elaboration, and it features prominently in Judaeo-Christian and mythology...". That doesn't change any of the content, but just seems like maybe a little more logical flow. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we not just say 'scripture' instead of 'mythology'? This is strictly factual and makes no statement about who regards it a true and who does not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The new wording doesn't make sense at all. There does not exist a single agreed upon definition of the word religion, but they all generally go along the lines of A system of practices which act according to beliefs ... Obviously, Noah's Ark is not in (i.e. classified as) a system of practises (sounds awkward now doesn't it?). Or perhaps consider these two

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

and

In the scientific method, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.

It's just wrong. Mythology is the most sensible word by definition, and is backed by reliable sources. To avoid it because some editors don't like it is way foul of a NPOV. Noah's Ark is classified as Abrahamic mythology, Duat as Egyptian mythology and evolution as belonging to biology. I would support the Abrahamic mythology wikilink over the more wordy Judeo-Christian and Islamic version I proposed, which addresses Til's concern above.

I don't know why Til is talking about proving this to be mythology, he still doesn't seem to get that it's a classification, so I can't address that concern. Also, I won't comment on the rest of the suggestion yet, since it's likely things will only have to change depending on how the intro sentence turns out. Ben (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Just some quick notes:

• Any lead should ideally be in subject/predicate form, X is Y, where X is the word or words in the article title, and Y is a very brief expansion/explanation. In this case, "Noah's Ark is/was (insert phrasing of choice)". It should not start "In Abrahamic religions..." unless there's a very good reason, and I can't see one.
• Of course, if we start that way, Ben won't like it: the first sentence would read "NA was a large vessel built at God's command" etc, and Ben wants to make clear that it wasn't a real boat (which is what this whole problem is about). So I suggest inserting the reference to Genesis at this point in order to make clear that it's a story - "NA is (not was) the large vessel in Genesis, built at Goad's command etc etc". The mention of Genesis is enough to make clear that it's in Abrahamic religions.
• I'm not happy with the mention of Noah's Ark being found in "numerous Abrahamic scriptures (with titles following). It's true of course, but is it so important as to merit a mention in the lead?
• I'm also not happy with saying it features prominently in Judeo-Christian and Islamic mythology. Where exactly does it feature? The Ark is never mentioned again the Old Testament (the Jewish angle), and barely in the New (Christian). And when it is mentioned in the New Testament, it's not in a mythological context, but a theological one - God, we are told, will save the elect through Christ as he once saved Noah. That's hardly a mythical take on it. (Of course, if you want to say it features in Jewish and Christian theology, that's quite a different matter).
• I have problems with this sentence: "A wide variety of interpretations arose over time, ranging from apologetic literalism to theological allegory to skeptical doubt." This misuses several terms - "apologetics", in the theological sense, isn't an apology but an explanation, and has no particular connection with Biblical literalism; I'd remove the word "theological" from in front of "allegory"; and I don't think "sceptical doubt" is a very meaningful phrase.
• Also this sentence: "However, many members of the Abrahamic faiths, such as Biblical literalists, continue to regard the story of the Ark as accurate and important history. Some explore for archaeological proof in the mountains of Ararat, where Genesis says Noah's Ark came to rest." There's no need to tell the reader that the people who search for the Ark are members of Abrahamic faiths - it can be taken as a give. Nor is it quite accurate - Ark-searching is exclusively associated with Fundamentalist Christians, and I doubt you'll find any Catholics or Orthodox, let alone Jews and Muslims, climbing Ararat.

PiCo (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your first two points, some context needs to be established in the first sentence, and it should be done as least awkwardly as possible. Mentioning Genesis is not sufficient to establish context for the reader, and I've discussed this at length above, any more than the name of a particular book of a particular collection of sacred writings from any other religion is. Identifying that Noah's Ark belongs to Abrahamic mythology is a clean establishment of context for the reader that is supported by the reliable sources. I can't see how to introduce this in the form you like in your first point, but I'm not convinced we need to. The reason I choose the word ordering I did was it was the least awkward way of presenting the relevant information. I'm not setting some precedent by doing this either, since countless other articles, from featured articles through to stubs, quickly establish some context for the reader before introducing the topic in exactly this way, with the same obvious motivation that it was the least awkward way to present the information (and in fact, isn't awkward at all). Also note that we're not violating any policies (or guidelines) that I'm aware of by choosing this particular word ordering. Finally, how about you stick to attacking my argument or suggestions, and not me?

For your third point, I think that it is found in numerous scriptures is important enough to mention in the lead, however I won't object if the list of such scriptures is removed from the lead (and retained in the article proper).

For your fourth point, I don't particularly like the wording of the sentence either. But this will be a non-issue if this is established in the first sentence as I've suggested anyway, since we can scrap it and move directly to discussing where, and from what context, Noah's Ark is later referenced (and this extends well beyond sacred literature, so trying to attach a simple 'features prominently in X theology' label to these later references is going to suffer the same problems you've highlighted with the current version). This addresses the second half of your fourth point.

I want to stress that discussion of these points has little value at the present, since until an introductory sentence has been settled, changes to it will have an effect on latter sentences (as I mentioned in discussing PiCo's fourth point, it will be a non-issue if context is properly established in the first sentence). For that reason, I'd like to hold off addressing your other concerns until this first sentence is settled. Ben (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ben, I'm not attacking you, I broadly agree with you. I was merely making a prediction.

Just as a matter of interest, this is what contemporary biblical scholars believe happened: In 586 BC the priests and aristocracy of Jerusalem (broadly the same people - they were from the same families) were taken off into captivity in Babylon. Some of them at least had a big intellectual problem: they'd been associated with a religious/political movement over the previous 50 years that had seen the priests providing a theological justification for Judah to annex lands immediately to the north. God, the priests said, had promised it to them. And now here they were in captivity and Judah was part of someone else's empire. What had gone wrong? They settled down to explain it. God was angry, for Judah had sinned. The nature of the sin was insufficient attention to the worship of Yahweh, the personal god of Israel (they weren't monotheists - other gods existed, but Yahweh was the god of Israel, and he was a jealous god). So Yahweh had allowed Marduk, the god of Babylon, to conquer his people. Then in around 536 the Persians conquered Babylon and told the priests they could all go home (the aristocrats too). So they did. And someone, apparently a single individual, wrote what is now chapters 1-11 of Genesis. It's a complete, self-contained story, built on some earlier stories, but absolutely a unit. And one of it's main features is a detailed critique of Babylonian mythology. The Ark story was simply lifted from the Atrahasis myth and re-written to give a new twist, one that supported the personal theology of the Priestly author (although bear in mind that he represented a whole group of priests, and also aristocrats). He also lifted a number of other myths - Adapa and the South Wind, the Enuma Elish - and he used them to write theology. So the Ark story can't be read or understood outside the context of Genesis 1-11, which is not based on anything oral and traditional, but is an entirely literary and artificial creation. As for how Genesis 1-11 got attached to the rest of Genesis, that's another story, and there are lots of theories, but everyone recognises this as a unit, and almost everyone sees it being written when and how I describe. PiCo (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok no problem, it just seemed like you were attacking my motives with your predictions. Cheers, Ben (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I was willing to accept the statement that "it features prominently in Judaeo-Christian and Islamic mythology" as a compromise. But Ben isn't interested in any compromise, he will reject anything that isn't deliberately offensive to the literalist view, because, I believe, being deliberately offensive to the literalist view is really his goal, not true, strict neutrality. His past statements on several occasions about how anything that doesn't offend the literalists, means thus we are kow-towing to them, bear what I'm saying out. His entire view of "neutrality" is skewed; to him it means, in a machievellian sense, that we must offend and antagonize one view of scripture to show that we are "neutral", and endorse his own interpretation of the Christian scriptures while telling other views in the controversial subject that sorry, their interpretation of Scripture is just plain wrong, because only Ben's sources are "reputable". With this kind of attitude, I do not believe we will ever find middle ground or compromise, because there is no middle ground. I said that a slightly stronger case could be made that the Ark "features prominently in mythology" because this is more accurate and neutral than saying it "is" mythology. For example, for centuries the Church maintained that sirens were nothing more than a Greek pagan fable, and did not exist. Then around the height of Reformation (c. 1600 AD), some Jesuits like Kircher suddenly reversed this position and began to assert that sirens were actually real creatures, and that this means they were also aboard the Ark. I doubt if they convinced too many Protestants, or dissuaded them from overseas travel, with this kind of tactic. But who today would dispute that Kircher's claim is one example of the Ark "featuring prominently in Christian mythology"? I wouldn't even dispute that. There are similar examples in other Abrahamic religions, of the Ark "featuring in" mythology, many already supported by the body of the article. Thus Vassyana's wording seems like a stroke of genius because normally it should satisfy everyone. But to say the canonical scripture account by itself just "is" mythology, is to violate neutrality by summarily discounting from consideration, all those significant numbers who expressly disagree with that assessment. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again I'm repeating myself, when reliable sources classify Noah's Ark as mythology it says nothing about the historicity of it. You need to sort out your association of mythology with false stories and/or dead religions, it's not correct usage for an encyclopaedia. It is your refusal to do this that is the problem. I am not judging peoples interpretation of scriptures, we are reflecting the classification of a particular narrative by reliable sources, which we are required to do in order to satisfy WP:NPOV. We do not prescribe our own usage of terms or classification, and this includes omitting important classification context for readers. I also note that two people have already objected to the suggested compromise you are so fond of. As I've gone through above, fixing the introductory sentence gives us room to fix the problems associated with it though. Ben (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Over the years that this debate has raged, this is one of my favorite responses among the many that various editors have made to that argument: [13] (User Pollinator, writing in Jan 2006, he does raise some good points about defining and redefining words away from the way most people perceive them.) But it is not that I "need to sort out my association of mythology with false stories". This definition is, as has been pointed out all along, a valid definition, included in practically every dictionary as a common definition. When external sources apply this same word, "mythology", to the story of Noah's Ark, they do so precisely n order to connote their opinion that the story is false -- far more often than any sources might do so for the sake of expressing their "neutrality". I can find PLENTY of quotes like this one: Now I do not believe the story of the flood and of Noah's Ark, and I doubt that many of those reading this believe it either, at least not in a literal sense. It is clearly a part of biblical mythology and probably originated in an earlier culture and found its way into the mythos of the ancient Hebrews and thus into the Old Testament. (Ricker, Godless in America: Conversations with an Atheist‎, 2006, p. 56) Perhaps a common opinion, but still an opinion that significant groups of people don't subscribe to. And the word that this author is using to push his point-of-view, is the very same one that pov-pushers want wikipedia to recognize as "neutral" by applying only one of its two dictionary definitions. And here's another very good reliable source discussing Noah's Ark, the Bible in relation to the terms "history" and "myth": [14] Please note that the author, Northrop Frye here uses the commonly understood definition of the contrast between "history" and "myth" that is a clearly subjective one, and makes several other pertinent comments about this same topic we are discussing. And on the next page he states that whenever "scholars" describe elements of Genesis, or the rest of the Bible, as "myths", they are really proposing that they be removed from the canon as unhistorical elements. He's right, they are proposing this, but it's not wikipedia's place to subtly push this idea, and certainly not to recommend or suggest what parts of the Bible ought to be decanonized as unhistorical. Let the churches determine what their own canons are to include, not wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Decanonized as unhistorical? What are you even talking about? Are you somehow concerned that once a part of the bible is considered to be mythology by a religious group, then they must not consider it canonical or something? That is nonsense. And what does it even have to do with this article? Til, we don't have the interests of outside groups in mind when writing this article. That is pure POV pushing. And Frye does not suggest any of this either. Let me start with a quote of his:

In this narrative there is no boundary line anywhere clearly defined that separates myth from legend, legend from historical reminiscence, reminiscence from didactic history, didactic from actual history.

He goes on to argue that looking for actual history in the bible by striping away all of the mythology is the wrong way to go about it, since

we shall find that we have thrown out so much of the Gospels that not one syllable of any of the four of them is left.

He, like any reasonable person, does not believe the Bible contains only false statements, and so as I have been trying to explain all along mythology and historical fact can (and do) overlap. The definition of the word has this feature built into it, it's why scholars use it. Frye is not discussing whether texts should be considered canonical or not at all, he is talking from a literary criticism point of view. Once again I am forced to review your chosen sources carefully to fix up own synthesis of them. Your synthesis of Ricker is just as poor. You come to the absurd conclusion that since he doesn't consider it historical and he considers it mythology, he must equate mythology with false. I am in the same boat as Ricker, yet I do not consider the terms equal, not even close! I really am sick of reading and interpreting your sources for you Til, trying to separate your synthesis of the text from what is actually discussed. That was the last time I'll do it. Please stop allowing your POV to influence your actions here. Ben (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-read the Frye passage. He is discussing exactly the same issues that we are discussing, and his comments are 100% relevant, not a synthesis. Discussing the Ark story and whether or not it is a "myth", he clearly acknowledges: "The ordinary notion of myth and history is that history is what really happened; myth is what probably didn't happen, at least not in that form". He clearly writes: "scholars still speak hesitantly of 'mythical elements' in Genesis or the Gospels, as though they were elements that could be, or should be, removed". Apparently you don't like the source because it uses the term "myth" the same way most people understand it, so you pulled the accusation of "synthesis" out of your hat. But it's right on target to the same discussion we are having, and it's just the kind of source we should be looking for. I can find scads of other quotes that leave no doubt that when they say the Noah story is a "myth", they mean to say it is fictional. And reading all your past comments also shows that you are making both arguments at the same time, seemingly supporting the word "myth" in both of its meanings, by also arguing your view that the story is unhistorical. You can't pretend the word is neutral only when it suits your purpose or agenda. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Til, you seem to have a problem with reading. Bulk information is presented to you, be it a book, paper, reply to a previous comment, whatever. Then you mine a phrase or two that you like, completely disregard the rest of the material, and try and build a case using your mined words. You just did it again with my last reply. I don't get it, and it is so unconstructive. Did you even look at the date the work was originally published and compare it with the source I gave in the previous section? Ben (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Modified suggestion for first sentence

In Judeo-Christian and Islamic scripture, Noah's Ark was a large vessel, built to save Noah, his family, and stock of all the world's animals from the deluge.

I still think 'scripture' is the most neutral and strictly matter-of-fact term to use here even thought it is less descriptive that other possible terms. Because we are talking about perceptions rather than strict or academic meanings I have also removed 'at the command of God' from this sentence. It is rather bland but it may be the only way forward. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The 'literalist' sabotage

PiCo, I've thrown out your edits on this section yet again. You have attempted to insert them repeatedly over the last 6 months or so. You have typically refused to discuss the issue, and even when you did finally discuss it you refused to abide by Wikipedia policy and ignored that I had written. If you want to make these edits you'll have to make a proper case for them (which you've never done), and you'll have to start abiding by Wikipedia policies (which you have consistently ignored). I know you don't agree that the Universalist Church should be in Wikipedia, but it is. You'll find the reason under WP:NOTE. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

TB, you do not own the article, and your word is not Holy Writ. I've explained my edits in the edit summary. If you disagree, discuss it here. For a start, the Universalist Church is so tiny and unimportant even the Wikipedia article can't find much to say about it - as I said in my edit summary, they're not big enough to be used as an exemplar. Note, I'm not objecting to them having an article on Wikipedia. For the rest, I repeat: taking the Ark story to refer to a literal Ark, is literalism. How you can dispute this I don't know, but you're welcome to do so here on Talk. However, I do ask you to remain civil. You can start by not referring to edits you dislike as "sabotage". PiCo (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Taiwanboi, you persist in reverting this edit, apparently on no better grounds than that you don't like it. Please observe Wikipedia rules and argue your case on the Talk page. And please observe the normal rules of etiquette and good manners. Be civil, explain your actions.PiCo (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with me thinking I own this article, or my word being 'Holy Writ'. I have repeatedly argued my case on here on the Talk page, whereas you have habitually refused to do so. It is accurate to term your edits as sabotage (though I will use editing and editing from now on) , for the following reasons:

• The first is that they are part of a long term pattern (over 12 months), of edits which never add any information to the article (including an avoidance of reliable sources), but always attempt to remove or suppress information which in any way asserts or lends credibility to the historicity of the Ark (I have documented and recorded over 6 months of such edits demonstrating such a pattern).
• The second is that they edits which have been made repeatedly without discussion, and made repeatedly whilst deliberately refusing discussion and ignoring any requests to do so.
• The third is that they are edits which repeatedly commit factual errors, even after those factual errors have been identified with relevant documentation (such as your claim that the Universalist Church is not notable, and your deliberate placing under Biblical literalism of viewpoints which were not Biblical literalist.
• The fourth is your refusal to engage in third party mediation with regard to this particular dispute, despite my repeated requests to settle the matter this way (you know full well that your edits wouldn't be supported).

A review of your edit history with regard to this article demonstrates that the amount of information you have contributed to it is minuscule. In comparison, you have spent most of your time attempting to remove information from it, or preventing certain information from being included, even when that information is in accordance with Wikipedia policies and accompanied by reliable sources. I have documented a number of instances in which other editors have objected to this behaviour of yours, and called on you to stop. I am entirely willing to present this to a third party mediator. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Taiwanboi, everything you've written here is personal attack - there's nothing in it that constitutes a critique of the edit or a defence of your own view, or even a definition of it. Please approach this in a calm and impersonal manner. Explain what you don't like about the section, and what you'd like to see changed. Until and unless you're willing to do that, the existing version will have to stay. PiCo (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The above is simply a dispassionate statement of documented facts which does explain (in some detail), why your edit is wrong and why it needs to be changed. I have made this same argument repeatedly over the last 6 months. You haven't even attempted to address my oft repeated argument. You have given no explanation for your edit, nor any reason why you refuse to change your wording to 'Viewpoints maintaining the historicity of the Ark' (if that is your intended meaning). --Taiwan boi (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, I note that's four reverts by you in 24 hours. Care to explain? --Taiwan boi (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see you explain your own reverts - the reasons for them, what it is you object to. The section is headed Literalist approaches to Noah's ark, or something like that. It's exactly the same material that was already there, but now, instead of being in two or three sections, it's in one. This is logical. I don't know whether you object to collecting these sections together, or to something else, you haven't explained. You have, however, said you don't like calling those who believe in a literal Ark, literalists. Frankly, I can't understand your point. Now, please explain your own point of view. PiCo (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As stated previously, I have explained my reasons before, repeatedly. You know exactly what I am objecting to, and why. --Taiwan boi (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Article protected

I've protected this article for 3 days, which I hope will be long enough to sort out the disagreements. I'm also asking everyone to calm down and look at their own behaviour, and Taiwanboy in particular to drop the talk of sabotage. dougweller (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I already said I would drop the use of that term. But if you're saying I should stop criticizing PiCo's behaviour, then I'm sorry I'm not going to do that. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the contributor. If their behavior is earnestly problematic, you can raise the issue at appropriate venues like wikiquette alerts, the incidents noticeboard and requests for comment. Article talk pages should be focused on the improvement of article content. Vassyana (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the way you didn't tell Doug to 'comment on the content, not the contributor'. And if you had read my posts you would be aware that I have painstakingly followed the Wikipedia conflict management policy. Over the last eight months I've requested comment, I've requested mediation, I've suggested compromise, I've posted an alert, I've held polls, I've had third parties give their views. None of this has changed anything. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is Wikipedia addressing?

The common person? Or the academic. The word myth means different things to these classes. I would assume that someone coming to Wikipedia for information, is probably not an expert in the subject they look up. Therefore the common meaning of myth (i.e. of no real historicity) should be assumed. ^rossnixon 01:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'd suggest a new section, called Genre, to discuss the various ways the story has been seen/described - that way we could fit in all these different ways of seeing it, and all, of course, are equally valid from the point of view of a popular encyclopedia. PiCo (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

rossnixon, I thought Wikipedia was for everyone. I also thought that people generally came here to learn something. If a reader associates the word myth with falsehood in all contexts, then they're a myth box or wikilink away from learning that that association shouldn't be the case. Mission accomplished.

As for a genre section to discuss the various ways the story has been seen/described, it would be just as possible to do this for many more parts of the Bible. I think that would be better off in a separate article, where it can be discussed generally, a history of the concept can be included (one book I mentioned above goes into detail about the history of this), and the Noah's Ark myth, among other sections, can be used as examples. Genre of the Bible perhaps? Ben (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I know that there have been books written about the Bible in terms of literary genres (poems, letters, etc.) Not that I'm going to write it! LovesMacs (talk) 06:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ^ross that the more commonly understood meaning of the word 'myth' makes it unsuitable for inclusion in the opening sentence. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If you've got an alternative in mind, perhaps you'd care to join the on-going discussion above. This particular dispute has (apparently) raged for three years and is currently receiving assistance from the MedCab. Please read what's already there though to save time and prevent repeating existing arguments. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 08:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Ooops. My bad. Hadn't spotted your edits above. --PLUMBAGO 08:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with this?

According to Judeo-Christian and Islamic scripture, Noah's Ark was a large vessel ...

In support I would say that it is factually correct but it avoids the use of the, technically correct but potentially controversial, word 'mythology'. I have left in the piped links to the mythology articles, however, as those article explain the both technical meaning of the word 'mythology' and the subject matter in detail. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it, as would others who are following this discussion I'm sure, if we didn't start a new thread every time someone wants their idea heard, so if you could factor this into the above discussion it would be appreciated. Now, I'll discuss this suggestion separately, but I'd rather not have to discuss and list reasons for supporting or opposing every new suggestion someone adds to this already long discussion, so let me try and address this one and any potentially new suggestions in one go. Wikipedia does not prescribe word usage, classifications, etc under any circumstances, it merely follows the conventions set out in reliable sources, and so we are bound by how we place this subject into context. Since the reliable sources classify this as mythology, specifically Abrahamic mythology, and my suggestion above places the topic into context using this classification without awkward phrasing, we have a solid introductory line. An additional concession to alleviate the concerns of some editors, via the {{myth box}}, has been made that removes any chance of ambiguity of the word mythology. Everyone needs to remember that avoiding words because you or others don't like them is not neutral, and this is a core policy here are Wikipedia.

Addressing your specific suggestion, there are lots of things said according to scriptures you mentioned. Some historical, some mythical, some allegorical, some poetic, the list goes on, and this is touched upon in the section above. Noah's Ark falls under a specific classification, namely mythology. We should do the encyclopaedic thing an establish this context for the reader from the start (you would do this for a poem, or a scientific paper, or something else right?). Putting it off, or trying to hide this fact is not neutral or encyclopaedic. In fact, one of the more glaring problems with your reasoning is that you're asking us to censor a word because some might consider it controversial, and Wikipedia just isn't censored. Cheers, Ben (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Noah's Ark falls under a specific classification, namely mythology." No matter how authoritative you sound repeating that line over and over, it's still dead wrong. According to one school of thought (and an external one at that), yes, Noah's Ark falls under that classification. But according to other schools of thought, it definitely does not. The problem is that, as an atheist, you do not seem to recognize any other schools of thought beside your own as valid, nor acknowledge their existence, no matter how much their existence has been documented and they have been proven to exist. There's your bias. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ben, if this conflict to ever to be resolved then maybe you will have to give a little. I understand your comments about Noah's Ark being classified as mythology by reliable sources, but it does seem that there may be other opinions on this. What is true without doubt is that the Ark is mentioned in certain religious scriptures. I do not see it as censorship to change a word that might be misunderstood by a significant section of our readership to another that is factually correct. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There are notable minority groups who hold the story to be historical, and this isn't disputed by anyone here. That these groups sometimes use an unencyclopaedic definition of the word mythology is unfortunate, just as it is unfortunate that some groups use the word theory in an equally informal manner to try and 'reclassify' scientific theories as something conjectural. When their views (in this case historicity) are sufficiently notable and we cover them here, we do not adopt their conventions. We simply explain their historicity (or whatever) position in an encyclopaedic manner. I was initially opposed to the myth box, but have agreed to include it to alleviate the concerns. It perfectly addresses the issue, since confusion is impossible with it sitting there. I don't see how I can give any more without violating WP:NPOV, and giving undue weight to people who use the term informally. Ben (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not just minority groups who may misunderstand the word 'mythology', my guess is that most people will. My dictionary (Collins) gives the 'technical' meaning of 'myth' first, but as as second definition it gives, 'a person or thing whose existence is fictional or unproven'. I think that most non-experts would assume this second meaning, I did. To go back to your example, if there was a work of literature that was technically a poem but many people regarded it as prose, the the best option in WP might be to refer to it by a broader term such as 'work' to avoid endless edit wars.

I do understand your stand on this issue and if I had to make a decision between the two original choices I would certainly have gone for the 'mythology' one as being more accurate, encyclopedic and neutral. There are many interest groups trying to subtly impose their views on WP and in general I agree that they should be resisted. However, in this case your best chance of actually improving the article and making it lastingly more neutral might be to allow just one word to be changed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I appreciate that you understand where I'm coming from, thank you. Since I use this encyclopaedia as a learning tool fairly often, maintaining its integrity is important to me. I want to have to rely on the references of a given article to verify things, not get the complete picture. To that end, I would like to think most editors here choose the most suitable material to represent a given topic, without bowing to pressure from interest groups or impending edit wars. If by the end of this medcab case it turns out that the introduction I've suggested is not suitable, then I won't take it any further, but until then I'm going to at least present a decent case for the "more accurate, encyclopaedic and neutral terminology" and the myth box to handle any misconceptions. Cheers, Ben (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I would simply add that, with my proposed modification, editors will find it much harder to argue against your proposal without showing a distinct non-neutral POV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but readers should be our biggest (only?) consideration shouldn't they? As I said, when I read an article, I would like to think it reflects the current literature, not have to rely on the current literature to give me a proper overview. Cheers, Ben (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem that keeps going on and on is that one person's "reliable source" is another persons biased rag. Some do not seem to realize that there is NO NEUTRAL source about this topic. Scholarly literature is NOT NEUTRAL. The problem with the Bible is that you either believe that it is true, or you believe that it is not true. And those that take one view are strongly biased agaist the other and visa versa.

It appears to me that the ONLY way to resolve this is to write the article sourcing different POVs and noting which is which. I.e., have a section from the scholarly POV, and another from the POV of believers. That way the readers are exposed to the reality of the situation. Otherwise the article becomes propaganda for one side or the other. Christian Skeptic (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) No, that's a false dichotomy. Your proposal appears to be for a POV split. This is equally problematic; we do not do this on WP. Have I misunderstood your post? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If it is impossible to find neutral sources such as in this case, how would you propose dealing with the widely different views? Scholars are not the end all of truth. Much of such "scholarly" viewpoints, propagandized on the History and Discovery channels, are highly offensive and extremely biased according to those who believe the Bible.

If scholars wish to hold such views--fine. But they need to recognize the biased POV that they have. Those who chose to believe the Bible and the Noah's Ark story are also biased. And they have a POV. It seems that the only valid way to deal with this is to identify the various POVs and then explain what they are. If Wikipedia doesn't do this then it is highly flawed and basically becomes propaganda. Christian Skeptic (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets start with your opening statement: It is impossible to find neutral sources ... in this case" I disagree. I find your statement disingenuous. That sources do not agree with your personal opinion does not make them biased or non-neutral. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is biased. Those who aren't, don't know themselves and are dangerous. There is no such thing as a neutral source, especially when it comes to the Bible. Scholars are either for it or against it. If they think they are neutral, they are fools. Everyone has his personal opinion. The wise person know his bias and the biases of others, and seeks to better understand the biases of others. A proper discussion of a topic explains the biases, beliefs and differences. Christian Skeptic (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I was only making a suggestion for the opening sentence. My point was that by using the term 'scripture' we are talking about a simple and easily verified matter of fact. The Ark is mentioned in Christian scripture, without any doubt. Can we not at least agree on how to start the article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No. It tries to hide biases in the links.... Christian Skeptic (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

How about if the links were to scripture. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Martin, I'm starting to doubt that hiding the links will make it harder for editors to complain. If we just stick to what the reliable sources say, at least everyone will be able give consistent responses to the editors that do complain. P.S. Merry Christmas all! Ben (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ben, see my addition above. Maybe we could say something about mythology later in the main text. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It's an article about a piece of mythology, why leave it until later in the article to mention this? Would you ask that the Barack Obama article not mention that he is the President-elect until later in the article because some people don't like it? Ben (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The comparison is not apt, and just off-topic spin-doctoring, for the simple reason that nobody even disputes that he is President-elect of the USA. If really takes spin-doctors a lot of spin-doctoring, to spin the view that the inclusion of "myth" on a list of "words to avoid" really means it is a word that absolutely, of necessity, must be used at all costs, with no compromise. My head is spinning now from trying to wrap my head around that one to see it the way you do. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

My point was to illustrate that people not liking something is no reason avoid it in the article (an elected political leader that some people didn't like was the first example of this I thought of), and my first example does that fine. You can change the example to something more controversial if you want, like that he is African-American, but that obviously doesn't illustrate my point. Ben (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ben, 'President-elect' is a term well understood by most of the population whereas 'mythology' may well be misunderstood by most. It might therefor be better not to use the term until we are able to put it in a fuller context. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the myth box doesn't address this problem? And please keep in mind that what is good for this article, should be good for all articles. Should we rename the Christian mythology, creation myth, Egyptian mythology, etc articles? And should we avoid using the word 'theory' in scientific articles since lots of people misunderstand that word too? Ben (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(It wasn't my intention, but that was a bit too close to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) Ben (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

In Abrahamic traditions

The article's section titles include "In 'fill in blank' tradition", such as "In Islamic tradition". Of course, most are later traditions, but all are traditions. Collectively, they are Abrahamic traditions. Accordingly, "In Abrahamic traditions, Noah's Ark was..." introduces the topic. --Modocc (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What purpose would it serve, apart from creating a link to the Abrahamic traditions article? PiCo (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It adds information to the lede, because it introduces the traditions in which Noah's Ark appears, and it removes the repeated reference to the Book of Genesis. Modocc (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That's already covered in the first sentence of the third paragraph of the lede ("The story has been subject to extensive elaborations in Judaism, Christianity and Islam..."). What essential new information is added by specifying that these are known collectively as Abrahamic traditions? If you have a stylistic objection to repeated mentions of the word Genesis, that can be easily dealt with. PiCo (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I should have simply said that Abrahamic traditions adds context to the first sentence. Details about these traditions should be included further down. --Modocc (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think 'tradition' would be as problematic as 'mythology' in the lead sentence. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Abrahamic traditions and Biblical tradition

In the lede, it should be made clear that the first sentence is generic to all the Abrahamic traditions, and that the story as told in the second paragraph is specifically biblical (from the Book of Genesis). Citing only Genesis in the first sentence and continuing unmodified to the 2nd paragraph muddles these facts. Modocc (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The correct first sentence is given as suggestion #2 in the RFC above, according to your dictionary, the majority of the notable, reliable sources and scholars in the field and your English teacher (it makes sense). Ben (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If any tweak helps solve a clearly identified problem without creating more problems lets keep it. I'm not against your suggestion, as it does not matter to me, however, this article and related articles would not be significantly improved by such edits. The Adam and Eve, The Tower of Babel and similar articles refer to the books and so can this article. Modocc (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As with all Wikipedia articles, it's more helpful and important to explain what something is before you explain where it comes from. The proposed edit does this, ergo, it's an improvement. Also note WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ben (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Its a story. Lots of OTHERJUNKEXISTs, but in difficult cases it doesn't hurt to check to see if there is any BETTERSTUFF. Modocc (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't criticising the act of checking for other stuff, I don't think anyone would, I was just noting that using it as a reason for anything must be done with care. Ben (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Now, another attempt to fix this, with consensus.

The most concern I have had with prior attempts has actually been the removal of Genesis from the first sentence, for the story may have the most weight (at least it does in Western culture) and as the Genesis account is prominent in other related articles. It still possible to keep and give substantial weight to the Genesis story though, with something like: "In the Book of Genesis and other scriptures of the Abrahamic religions, Noah's Ark was", followed in the second paragraph with "The Genesis story...". This proposal solves the contextual issues and has the advantage of smoothly transitioning the first two paragraphs. -Modocc (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that mentioning a specific religious text in the opening sentence gives that text too much weight. Of course Genesis can be mentioned later, where it can be put more into context. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In that case, we should refer to Genesis when telling the story in the second paragraph because the numerous narratives do differ. We would need something like "The story, according to the Book of Genesis, tells how God...". Modocc (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Earlier versions of the intro did do this, but people keep changing bits and pieces without considering consensus or the introduction as a whole. I think the introduction should be reworked on this page, and then moved over to the main page when some sort of consensus has been achieved. Your earlier suggestion of Abrahamic traditions is a step in the right direction in that it doesn't get into specifics too early, though it is non-standard terminology and the word placement doesn't seem to make sense to me (the story is in a set of traditions?). The first paragraph can be used to explain there are differing narratives, where the second paragraph can pick up on the Genesis version (and its elaborations in later works). The third paragraph can probably be safely left out of the discussion until we sort out the first two paragraphs. Ben (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, introducing the story in general way, and lets consider disambiguating what we are talking about (a story) like this:

"Noah's Ark, a story of Abrahamic traditions, was a"

-Modocc (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It still doesn't make sense. To say that a story belongs to a set of traditions is awkward. And you're trying to prescribe terminology that isn't supported by the majority of the reliable sources on this topic, which is strictly against policy at WP:NPOV. You acknowledge the current intro isn't good enough, but won't use the reliably and notably sourced suggestion I've already mentioned. Why is it deficient? Is there something it fails to capture? What is the problem? Ben (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Traditions are things that are passed down from generation to generation. In this case: a story. Saying its awkward and "doesn't make sense" is vague. As for a critique of your suggestion, I've no huge objection, however most article subjects are not prefaced with whatever science may study it. We would certainly not write "In biology, oil glands are...". Oil glands are biological, and we can source that and include it too, but then we would be leaping into the triviality of it all. In my view, the fact that its myth is trivial. More importantly, and whats being discounted above, is that there are usually alternatives when dealing with identity issues. -Modocc (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I went to the oil glands article, and it was a stub. Maybe you should choose a better biological representative, like say, evolution? It's an FA. It's also much more controversial than this subject. I tend to find that most decent articles introduce some context in the first sentence like the above (or perhaps in some other order if English permits it). I don't really see the point in arguing too much about the vagueness of my 'doesn't make sense' argument, since it still leaves the problem that we're prescribing our own terminology that isn't established by reliable sources. Ben (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

From suggestion #2 above

In Abrahamic mythology, Noah's Ark was a large vessel built by Noah at God's command to save his family, and stock of all the world's animals, from the deluge. The story was derived from Mesopotamian mythology around the 5th - 10th century BC, and is today most notably contained in the first book of the Bible, Genesis, and the Qur'an.

The Genesis story tells how God, grieved by the wickedness of mankind, decides to destroy the corrupted world, but instructs Noah to build the Ark and take on board his family and representatives of the animals and birds. The flood rises to cover the Earth, but at its height "God remembered Noah", the waters abate, and dry land appears. The story ends with Noah offering an animal sacrifice and entering into a covenant with God. God regrets the flood, and promises never to do it again, displaying a rainbow as a guarantee.

It still needs some tweaking, in particular it could be noted that there are differences in different works. I tried to do this by talking about elaborations, but elaborations are discussed in the third paragraph, so I've just removed it for now. Maybe the ordering of paragraphs two and three should be changed to help deal with this, in particular parts of the third paragraph could be merged into the first. This would also help 'unhide' the cite in the second paragraph. I'm also not happy with the sloppy dates. Ben (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Opposed. The suggestion that 'The story was derived from Mesopotamian mythology around the 5th-10th century BC' (shouldn't that be 'BCE'?), is a claim without support from the scholarly consensus (which actually agrees that the relationship between the Biblical and Mesopotamian flood narratives is complex and anything but a simple literary derivation). Of course, I'm not objecting to the word 'mythology', as explained above. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I used BC since that is what the rest of the article used, though I'm not worried about a change if others agree with it. I didn't choose the language to try and imply the relationship was simple either, so I'm sorry it came across that way. Do you have a suggestion on how to mention this relationship without it getting too messy? I tried to explain above that the intention was to work in a mention of elaborations and differences a bit more explicitly (a footnote isn't really satisfactory) to this proposal, once a relationship with other works had been established. Ben (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the difficulty in making suggestions for improvement which don't come across as simplistic, since the issue is complex. I do agree with you that footnotes would be somewhat clumsy. I'm actually wondering if it can be conveyed with sufficient clarity and usefulness in the limited space available in the lede. This keeps raising the fact that an article specifically on the Genesis flood does not currently exist, whereas it certainly should and this would be one issue it could address (the Noah's Ark article could then link to the relevant section when describing the fact that the flood story is found in a number of ANE traditions). Perhaps the lede could simply mention that the narrative of Noah' Ark is part of a deluge narrative the key elements of which are found in a number of ANE traditions with which the Genesis narrative shares a complex literary and historical relationship? Again, this would be the right place for a link to a complete article on the Genesis deluge. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there really sufficient material to support a decent article on Noah's Ark outside of Genesis though? Ben (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a highly controversial topic, and as with any Bible topic, there is a wide gamut of incompatible interpretations, analysis, hypotheses and conjectures from differing published sources, that do not all agree with one another, and cannot be artificially "made" to agree with one another by bending the semantics. In such a situation, it is not our job as editors to "establish" that some published POVs or hypotheses are "valid", while others are "wrong". We are not a board of judges who have been appointed to determine for all time what Truth is, here on the talkpage. Your talk of "We can mention those views only once we have established they are correct" shows that your basic understanding of NPOV is still completely backwards. NPOV policy is very clear what we do in such controversial situations where there is no agreement among sources: we reserve making any independent judgement about which ones are "correct", and we simply list all the various opinions and iterpretations, along with who holds them, without trying to "push" for any one POV, or pretend that many sources aren't sufficient to establish that a POV exists just because some of us may personally disagree with it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering where I said "We can mention those views only once we have established they are correct"? I agree that is wrong, so I'm wondering within what possible context I said that. Cheers, Ben (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It's that you seem to have a litmus test for "reliability" that presupposes an answer to the question the other sources have a different answer to. That totally goes against all our standards for what RS can be used for. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean to say I didn't say that? Then can you please give an example of a source that is reliable, that I said wasn't reliable? Ben (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Great, you added in a bunch of other disputed POV assertions as fact, and make it seem like something nobody believes anymore, failing to mention as has been repeatedly established, the inconvenient fact that many people today do. What kind of "compromise" is this? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a part of the definition of mythology. The Encyclopedia mythica for instance explicitly notes that all myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that used or originated the myth. If you think it is worth mentioning more explicitly, then suggest how to word it. Ben (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Discuss, don't vote my bruthah from another scholah. Ben (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

...copied from inside the hat section

The idea that the story was derived from Mesopotamian mythology is also not undisputed. There are also sources that consider the Mesopotamian myth to derive from the Bible, and others that consider both to derive from a third original, now lost account. Of course, we've already heard the opinion that only those sources complying with a particular viewpoint are "reliable", and all the rest aren't even significant or notable enough even to establish that anyone thinks differently. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well Til, you need to establish the significance of those views. If you find that they are more significant than the sources outlining that Noah's Ark was derived from Mesopotamian mythology, then I'm happy for your viewpoint to replace this one. Otherwise, WP:NPOV is very clear about this. Ben (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep informing me what you think I need to do, as if you are my arbiter? I don't recognize you in any such role -- in fact, I'm not really convinced or impressed by much of your self-important and magisterial-sounding spin-doctoring of every single source I have found so far. I am familiar with wikipedia's established standards on what purposes sources can be reliable for, when determining if a viewpoint is significant or may be mentioned neutrally, perhaps you are not. Again, feel free to check with WP:RS/N to see if they agree that my sources are all unmentionable rubbish and of no value. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a discussion of this proposal, not Martin's (again)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As you seem to be back to the same dispute, I am going to ask again if both of you could live with: In Abrahamic scriptures Noah's Ark was a large vessel built by Noah to save his family, and stock of all the world's animals, from the deluge. The story was derived from Mesopotamian mythology around the 5th - 10th century BC, and is today most notably contained in the first book of the Bible, Genesis, and the Qur'an. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Why is this better than the above version? Ben (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC) The idea that the story was derived from Mesopotamian mythology is also not undisputed. There are also sources that consider the Mesopotamian myth to derive from the Bible, and others that consider both to derive from a third original, now lost account. Of course, we've already heard the opinion that only those sources complying with a particular viewpoint are "reliable", and all the rest aren't even significant or notable enough even to establish that anyone thinks differently. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Well Til, you need to establish the significance of those views. If you find that they are more significant than the sources outlining that Noah's Ark was derived from Mesopotamian mythology, then I'm happy for your viewpoint to replace this one. Otherwise, WP:NPOV is very clear about this. Ben (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Why do you keep informing me what you think I need to do, as if you are my arbiter? I don't recognize you in any such role -- in fact, I'm not really convinced or impressed by much of your self-important and magisterial-sounding spin-doctoring of every single source I have found so far. I am familiar with wikipedia's established standards on what purposes sources can be reliable for, when determining if a viewpoint is significant or may be mentioned neutrally, perhaps you are not. Again, feel free to check with WP:RS/N to see if they agree that my sources are all unmentionable rubbish and of no value. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC) You seem to be arguing about the second sentence. Does that mean that you would both accept the first? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC) I think it's worse than my version, which is why I wanted to know why you thought your version is better. Ben (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Of course you think it is worse than your version, but it might be acceptable to Til. I am desperately trying to find a sentence that you can both agree on. You may both have to give a little. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Well, this entire debate started (before I got here in this instance, and has been ongoing for three years according to Til) over the word mythology and as you point out, "of course [I] think [your version] is worse than [my] version", for all the reasons I, and others, have listed on this page. With both of those things in mind, you're going to have to give a slightly more compelling reason to drop the 'mythology issue' than Til liking the version of the intro without it. If that is truly the only reason you're suggesting it, then of course I oppose it. Ben (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Then it looks like you are going to be stuck with the current version for some time. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Am I to interpret that as "if Til doesn't like it then it doesn't get implemented"? Ben (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC) No, once again you are attempting to single me out, when multiple editors besides me are on record as saying they don't find the term "mythology" necessary and consider it over-the-top framing. I could make quite a long list of editors if you go back over 3 years of this dispute. You would have to discount a lot of editors besides just me to pretend you have a "consensus". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Til, what are you talking about? I explained to Martin that "you're going to have to give a slightly more compelling reason to drop the 'mythology issue' than Til liking the version of the intro without it". He replied with "Then it looks like you are going to be stuck with the current version for some time". I was asking how I should interpret that, not singling you out. Why am I even explaining this? You really are an amazing creature Til. Ben (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC) What part did you not understand? I thought I was clear enough. And please, stop reconfiguring all the comments or hiding them from sight, according to your aesthetics or opinions. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Then what do you propose I do Til? This is the third section Martin has brought his suggestion up in. One of the sections is dedicated entirely to it. He needs to flesh it out there, not here. Ben (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I was using Til as an example of the many who appear to object to the use of the word 'mythology', at least in the opening sentence. I would be pleased to flesh out my suggestion if there were any sign that some sort of compromise might be reached on just the opening sentence. I do not want to censor but there is no point in being gratuitously provocative. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ben, the lede should not be belabor too many details such as those with the stories' origins. In the very first sentence, the subject's notability needs to be established. IMHO, removing Genesis from the first sentence causes it to fail the notability standard. Modocc (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I introduced the stories origins so we didn't have to go into too much detail about why there are differences in different narratives. Once we start talking about a specific narrative in the second paragraph, it won't be too surprising to the reader why we've had to make the distinction "The Genesis story ..". I am open to suggestions, but I am against mentioning specific texts in the first sentence. As for establishing notability, I think the fact that this is a part of Abrahamic mythology more than suffices. Ben (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The question that needs to be answered from the guidelineis "Why is this subject notable?"[my emphasis]. Short answer, its a bible story. Without any reference to the Bible, there is nothing to distinguish it from less notable stories from more obscure texts. Looking only at the first sentence alone, heck, it could easily be something that my neighbors' pastor published as a part of the Abrahamic mythology. Its not of course, but to meet the standard, its best to keep a biblical reference in the first sentence. Modocc (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

With respect to your neighbours' pastor, his writings would not constitute Abrahamic mythology. Though I would support Hebrew or Biblical mythology if others found this suitable (both terms are also in use). Ben (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Ben needs to seriously consider his insistance on the use of the word 'mythology'. I have two reasons for this:

1. As mentioned above, the 'ordinary' man looking at this article will almost always assume that 'mythology' implies falsehood, regardless of any academic definition. Ben argues that they are just one click away from learning better, but the majority of 'ordinary' people, who are just looking for a quick and easy reference would not even think to do this - or even be aware of their ignorance. WP is written by Academia, but for the 'common' man. Including the term 'mythology' simply ensures that most people who read the article will believe the story of Noah's Ark to be false. Surely that should be avoided. 2. I disagree with the assertion that the acadamic concensus is that the story of Noah's Ark is a mythology. Certainly, you will find plenty of references to say that it is 'mythological in nature', but within that broad consensus are plenty of differing viewpoints. There are those who state that it is utterly made up - so classifying it as a fiction. There are those who say that it is a myth. There are those that say that it is allegorical - and thus a parable. Still others will say that it is rooted in some grains of historical truth - and therefore it is a legend. My point is that the number who say it is a 'myth' is actually a minority of those who broadly say it is 'mythological in nature'.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your point 1., that the ordinary man will always assume that mythology implies falsehood is a mighty big claim. I'm no biblical scholar, so I guess that makes me pretty ordinary, and I don't make that association in the context of any scholarly work like an encyclopaedia. I guess that breaks your claim. Your claim is just as easily disputed if you change 'all' to 'most', since there is prolific use of the term in general (as opposed to specialist) works. Encyclopedia Britannica being the most closely aligned to this project, but then the words use extends even as far as children's books, the general media, and academic institutions in an educational environment, and lets not forget every dictionary that has been checked on this talk page. I think your claim is dubious at best. I have a question for you, how does this position of yours get around scientific articles on Wikipedia freely using the word theory? Finally, the consensus among scholars is that the Noah's Ark story is not grounded in history, and this is practically undisputed outside of those few who consider the Bible as history. The article should reflect this majority viewpoint per WP:WEIGHT, so being worried about one word implying that the Ark story is not historical, when the rest of the article should anyway, is a bit silly.

Regarding your point 2., You can't dispute that 'the majority of reliable sources classify this story as mythological', when the reliable sources themselves make the claim that 'the majority of reliable sources classify this story as mythological'. As for the different labels you've given the story, for all the research I've done since this discussion has started, I have rarely read anyone who described this story as fiction (J. R. R. Tolkien comes to mind). I could go through your list of terms, but I think Northrop Frye said it best:

A structure of myth and metaphor is what we have: it is all that we have, and it is no use trying to shake a residue of factual history out of it, even on a spiritual level. We may say, for example, that some Biblical stories seem to deal with really central issues, like the five versions of the Resurrection story, and that these may be the spiritual form of real events. Others, like the stories of Samson, seem to be clearly folk tales, or at best allegories, while still others, like the story of Job, are explicitly poetical. But as long as we keep steadily looking at the whole Bible as a seamless web of myth and metaphor, this reductive solution becomes increasingly unsatisfying.

For all your concern about the ordinary reader, it seems absurd to burden them with such technicalities so soon in the article. Perhaps you just don't like it, I don't know, but the word myth is perfectly acceptable in all forms of media and for all levels of readership, and I don't see any reason why Wikipedia should be an exception to this preference. Ben (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"the word myth is perfectly acceptable in all forms of media and for all levels of readership" = FALSE. You're still baldly refusing to acknowledge the existence of any forms or levels that don't comply with your invented rule. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"so being worried about one word implying that the Ark story is not historical, when the rest of the article should anyway, is a bit silly." rather proves what TE has been saying - you are trying to impose your POV that everyone says that it is a myth when clearly there are very many people who do not accept that. Also, just because you do not associate mythology with falsehood breaks no arguments - a poll of 1 will always get a 100% result!--FimusTauri (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you the same person who wrote the first comment? Ben (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

'No' is the short answer.

Can I draw this discussion back to the original proposal put forward by Ben:

He claims that his proposed version is an improvement because it removes the presupposition of knowledge in the subject (by which I assume he means the Book of Genesis). This seems to me to be a frivolous argument, given that there is a link to that subject. Yet Ben later uses the argument that anyone who does not understand the concept of 'mythology' in an academic sense is only a click away from revelation (no pun intended!) On the one hand we have a concept (Genesis) with which most readers will have at least passing knowledge (and therefore will accept its context without further concern) and on the other hand Ben wishes to introduce a term (mythology) whose academic meaning is lost to the majority of readers. To my mind there is almost nothing wrong with the way it is currently worded, but the way Ben would like to word it is fraught with problems. Surely, if there is doubt about the use of a word, then the common sense approach is to avoid that word. The current wording is only at fault in that a minority of users would have to click a link to discover what the Book of Genesis is.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that I may have misunderstood Ben's last question. If he is asking if I am the same person who wrote the first comment, then no. If he means am I the same person who wrote the first comment by FimusTauri then the answer is 'Yes'.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is almost exactly the same as your first comment, so please reread my first reply again and feel free the answer the question I asked in it. You have added the highly dubious claim that most people know what Genesis is though, but this was one of the first things I discussed on this page. There are additional problems with restricting this article to only what is contained in Genesis, which has also been discussed in this very thread. Ben (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the question about the word 'theory', which also has a double meaning. There are differences. If a friend in a pub comes up and says "I have a theory as to why the beer is flat in here," you can be certain that he is simply engaging in speculation. If, on the other hand, he talks about Einstein's Theory of Relativity (which, you will note, is capitalised for this very reason), you know that he is talking about a sound mathematical model which has been subjected to peer review and is generally without dispute. Context is important in speech. In the written language the use of capitalisation generally is used to refer to established theories, further removing doubts from the context. With the word 'myth', capitalisation is only used to refer to specific 'myths', where the word 'Myth' forms part of the common name. Otherwise, there can be no certainty from the context as to whether the intended meaning is one of fable, legend or even colloquialism (which I know you have dealt most eloquently elsewhere). The significant difference is that context is far less likely to reveal to the listener or reader whether the intended meaning is one of falsehood or simply of classification under a heading intended to imply the legendary nature of the material without regard to its veracity.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahh I see, context works for the word theory .. but not for the word myth. Riiight. Anyway, it looks like the featured article General relativity could use a copy edit from you. With so many uncapitalised words, it's amazing it passed its featured article candidacy. Ben (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think any analogy with 'theory' in science is best avoided, there have been major edit wars over the use of this term in some articles. Let us just stick to the meaning and interpretation of the word 'mythology'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't see any relevance? Ben (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not that. It is that there is much controversy over the usage and meaning of the word theory, so using it as an example to help resolve this dispute is likely to be unhelpful. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've had the evolution page watchlisted for a really long time. The only controversy I remember ever seeing is people who come along and announce that 'evolution is just a theory'. It's similarity to the above 'confusion' argument, to me at least, is very clear. Perhaps you had some other controversy in mind, like if x should be labelled a theory or not? But that isn't the argument FimusTauri presented, though it is addressed, with respect to the word myth, by much of the rest of this talk page. P.S. We should get someone out to fix these train tracks. Ben (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The real issue here is whether or not the word 'mythology' is appropriate in this context. I accept that, according to the academic definition, the word is accurate - I do not agree, however, that it is appropriate.

Ben argues that the word myth is acceptable in all forms of media and at all levels of readership. This is the crux of the issue. I disagree. It may well be acceptable in the majority of the secular media, but the secular media presents only one side of the issue. The other side (the opposing POV) does not accept or use the word 'myth'. I cite two examples which must surely be considered both reliable and verifiable. The authors are certainly 'scholarly'. In both instances the subject is treated in a matter-of-fact, encyclopaedic manner. Neither states that the story is not a myth because they have no need to.

Bible History Online

Jewish Encycolpedia

Another source - The Catholic Encyclopedia - is equally scholarly and reads in a similar vein. It does, however include a quote which is interesting in this context:

The opinion that these chapters are mere legendary tales, Eastern folklore, is held by some non-Catholic scholars; according to others, with whom several Catholics side, they preserve, under the embroidery of poetical parlance, the memory of a fact handed down by a very old tradition.

Here, the opposing POV is presented. They also acknowledge a 'middle ground' view that story may not be literally true, but founded on some truth that was later embroidered.

The important point here is that there are literally millions (maybe even billions) of people who hold Christian, Jewish or Islamic faiths dear. The 'official' view of these faiths (as outlined in the references above) is that the story of Noah's Ark is, in essence, true, although there is debate within these faiths as to the degree of truth held within the stories. Whether they are right to hold the story as true or not, is not the issue here - the issue is simply whether they hold that view or not. The references I have given show that they do hold this view.

In light of this, it should be clear to any right-minded reader that using the term 'mythology' is likely to cause offence to many of these people. At the very least, the implication that a story held to be true by their faiths may be false is enough to warrant us not using the word 'mythology' to describe this story.

It is not our job to determine if the story of Noah's Ark is true or false. If use of a word in this context gives the implication to even a significant fraction of the readership that it is false, then that word must be avoided.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fimus, we must be aware of how the article will be perceived and understood by our readership. I have made some changes to Vassyana's suggestion with notes on why I made them, which you can find here. What do you think? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

For me, your suggestion is excellent, Martin. It avoids the potentially offensive term 'mythology' (and any similar terms). It states where the story can be found and gives a succinct summary. If people can agree on this then hopefully the article can move on. I also favour including the box to inform people as to what the term 'mythology' means, as this term may still be included later in the article (hopefully, in context and therefore without the potential for offense).--FimusTauri (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Fimus, your Catholic Encyclopedia is far from scholarly, it's a hundred years old, and things have moved on, even for Catholic scholars. As for causing offense, it's not one of our concerns - we should certainly avoid causing gratuitous offense, but if people are offended by the idea that the world is round instead of flat, that's no reason for humoring them. It's a simple fact that mainstream biblical scholarship regards the Ark story, and all the stories in the first dozen chapters of Genesis, as myth. (That includes Catholic scholars, by the way).PiCo (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have already acknowledged the accuracy of the scholarly use of the word 'mythology'. What is beyond my understanding is why there are individuals here who insist that the word must be used (and risk offending) when there are perfectly acceptable, non-offensive alternative wordings available, such as Martin's. If someone can give me a valid reason for being unnecessarily offensive then I will happily shut up on this issue.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I also add, being new to WP editing, I am still finding my way around. I have just been looking at the NPOV tutorial and came across the section 'mind your nuances'. This clearly states that we should take care in choosing our words. I realise this section is about nuance and not offense, but the principle is the same. It says to avoid words with the wrong nuance. In this instance 'mythology' may carry the nuance of 'falsehood'. Although academics would (and should) reject this, many others do not. In this context, the risk of the wrong nuance should be avoided. Again, I say that there are plenty of valid alternatives that do not carry this nuance.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, it would seem that,in your statement '...regards ...all the stories in the first dozen chapters of Genesis, as myth', you are using 'myth' to mean a story that is not literally true. According to the myth box, the word 'myth' carries no implication of truth or falsehood. The fact that the word can be used in two different ways is exactly the reason we should not be using it in the opening sentence. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Pico, another point: I have seen you, and others, repeatedly appeal to an imaginary "policy" that only exists in some peoples' heads, which you have expressed as: "As for causing offense, it's not one of our concerns - we should certainly avoid causing gratuitous offense, but if people are offended by the idea that the world is round instead of flat, that's no reason for humoring them.". That isn't quite what the real policy says. WP:NPOV, or "neutrality", actually means that (much like Switzerland) not causing offense IS one of our concerns. If you say it's not our concern, that's really the exact opposite of "neutrality". And for this purpose, a distinction there is made between *significant* or *widely held* views, and others. "Flat Earth" is NOT a *widely-held* view by any stretch, and there your favorite comparison falls down flat. For the last time already, please stop making it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article 'Describing points of view', under the section 'English language' states:

In the main English Wikipedia, there is still a need to avoid professional jargon and to keep language as simple and direct as the accurate treatment of the subject matter permits.

Using the word 'mythology' and assuming everyone knows that it is being used in the 'academic' sense is surely an obvious case of 'professional jargon' which we need to avoid.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

FimusTauri, your sources and accompanying reasoning aren't helpful to us, the first relies exclusively on a source from 1915, the second talks about Noah's Ark only as it is contained in certain literature, so no discussion outside of this literature takes place which is precisely where our problem lies, and the third PiCo has already dealt with. Your reasoning, "Neither states that the story is not a myth because they have no need to" and therefore these sources disagree with the classification, is just silly. If you're interested, I made reference to a book that discusses the evolving use of the word in one of the threads above.

Martin, why are you so insistent on your version? Your intention of helping resolve this argument by introducing alternatives to a sourced, neutral and accurate version of the introductory sentence is not helpful. In fact it's only extending this already long argument, which is the last thing we need right now. My intention here is not to please every editor, it's for accuracy and neutrality. You have now removed the mention of God because it "adds an air of unintended support for the existence and authority of the Abrahamic God". Yuck. The qualifier that this is part of Abrahamic mythology takes care of this perfectly. As I said, the Abrahamic mythology version is accurate, neutral and well-supported by the literature. Your version serves only to move this helpful classification to the third paragraph, and replace it with no classification, and among other things it introduces problems like your God problem above. This is a substantial weakening of the article. Do the article a favour Martin, please, not a couple of editors on this talk page.

Til, didn't we already discuss equating WP:NPOV with Swiss law? And I suggest you read the content disclaimer, where it notes that Wikipedia may contain material that is objectionable, in particular "many articles contain frank discussion of controversial topics". It also notes that "Wikipedia's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view) nor the laws of the state of Florida in the United States, where Wikipedia is hosted". We know that the classification of Noah's Ark as mythology holds the most significant viewpoint, so there is nothing left to argue about. Ben (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ben, I am insistent on my version because it is quite obvious that we are never going to get 'mythology' into the opening sentence because there is too much opposition to it, whether you consider that opposition justified or not. I am therefore trying to find a compromise alternative that is acceptable to all, based on the suggestion by Vassyana. You claim that the Abrahamic mythology version is 'accurate, neutral and well-supported by the literature' but others disagree. On the other hand nobody can dispute that the word 'scripture' is all of these? Finally, if you want to put God back into the opening sentence that is fine by me but there is already mention of God in the second paragraph, which is about Abrahamic religious texts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There are several problems here, but let me focus on three of the main ones. The first problem was the opposition to classifying Noah's Ark as mythology. It has been demonstrated via multiple sources that it is overwhelmingly classified as such, and so according to WP:NPOV we are supposed give this position due weight. The second problem is whether or not this classification belongs in the first sentence. Without going into the arguments for or against this, let us just say that I think it should be, you think it won't happen, and at least one person is against it. The third problem is in coming up with an adequate compromise should it be decided not to include it in the first sentence. It seems then, that you are one step ahead. Can we at least determine that the classification does not belong in the first sentence before we worry about compromises? If you're happy with this then I propose we start a new thread focused on whether the classification belongs in the first sentence. When all is said and done in that thread, we can start a new thread on compromises. What do you think? Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still think my likening the spirit of the NPOV policy to "Swiss law" is entirely appropriate; some things just can't be brushed off with a mere dismissive fleck of the old wrist and a "because I said so!". Switzerland's neutrality is a time-honoured and well understood metaphor for maintaining good diplomatic relations with -all- major parties, which is pretty much, exactly what NPOV calls for. But I can see how such a metaphor would become particularly odious to those parties who would redefine "neutrality" as: "Entering into the fray, throwing our weight with one side in opposition to the other, becoming a combattant, and blatantly antagonizing a very widespread viewpoint by using exactly the same detrimental language as their opponents in the controversy". Of course, if that's to be the true definition of our "neutrality", then it would require a similarly Orwellian interpretation of nearly every other word written at WP:NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of the word 'mythology' in the opening sentence.

At the suggestion of Ben, I have started this section to discuss what seems to me a major sticking point namely, should we use the word 'mythology' in the opening sentence? To help discussion, I have split this question into several parts.

What the hell Martin? You haven't split the question into several parts, you phrased the same negative argument for using the term as two questions. You gave no room for discussion of additional pros and cons. You ask for compromises well before we're even at that point, and although not to be ruled out, was something that was supposed to be avoided in such a manner until a discussion of the word myth in the introduction had taken place. I've seen some shitty and biased poll phrasings over the years that have no hope of getting a clear picture, but this one belongs with the worst of them. Ben (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that you see it that way, Ben, but it seemed to me that there might be two reasons for wanting 'myth' in the first sentence. One is to make a point, that the story is purely mythical (in the sense of being not true). The other is that that we do not believe or do not care that people may misunderstand the word. I am trying to find out if any editors want to make the point that the story is untrue. If not, then we can move on to discus the impression that we might be giving and the best choice of words. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What? You turned what was supposed to be a discussion on whether the first sentence should contain the word myth into your personal quest to find out if editors are trying to make the point that the story is untrue? You attach my name to this nonsense. You use the word myth in an unscholarly way after berating PiCo in the thread above for doing so (even though he/she wasn't). Argh, picking apart that reply is a waste of time, but I can't discuss what you just wrote with respect to the discussion we're supposed to be having, since the two things just aren't in the same ballpark. Salvage some credibility mate, retract your questions, apologise to PiCo for wasting his/her time, and we'll recast this discussion neutrally before anyone else wastes their time. Ben (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that it is unreasonable to decide what we are trying to say before we decide how to say it. If we all agree that we are not trying to make any kind of point about the truth or otherwise of the NA story then that is fine, I will drop that aspect of the discussion but I still have to ask, do we all agree on that point? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a by-product of a discussion on whether we use the term in the first sentence. Your focus on a particular point is too intense, many issues are out of the scope of your focus, and the bias blurs the issues that aren't. My above request remains. Ben (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be avoiding my question, do we all agree that we should not be making a point about the truth or otherwise of the NA story? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be avoiding a neutral discussion. To answer your question so you can hurry up and retract this nonsense though, I have a feeling you're butchering the word truth, and equating it with historical. In this case, then yes, we should at some point in the article note that the Noah's Ark story is not historical. Truth, however, depends entirely upon perspective. For instance many see it representing some truth, irrespective of its historicity. This is all bundled up in the term mythology though, and is in general beyond the scope of this article, however notable opinions with respect to Noah's Ark specifically are within the scope of the article. Ben (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am using the word 'truth' in a perfectly normal way to mean that all or some of the events described in the NA story actually happened. I do not understand what you mean by 'not historical', could you explain please. Obviously, you have some expertise in this subject which I do not and I am not familiar with all the terminology. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, to try and distinguish the word truth from historical, let me refer to a story I'm sure we've both heard of - the boy who cried wolf. Keep in mind I'm not trying to place Noah's Ark and this wolf story on the same level, it's just a demonstration. No-one associates this story with some piece of history, they don't claim that it is historical. It's purpose is to illuminate a simple truth: lie enough and people aren't going to take your word at face value, which can have harsh consequences. To say that the story isn't true is awkward, it's best to be specific and say it's not historical if that is what you mean. I'm not an expert either, and there are likely many ways the word truth can used in this context. For that reason, I avoid it where I can. Ben (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand that. So by 'historical' you mean something along the lines of 'historically or factually accurate'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I would put factually accurate in the same basket as truth, but by historical, yes I mean historically accurate. Ben (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So do you believe that it is the job of WP and, in particular, this article to tell readers that the NA story is not historically accurate?

Of course I do, and I have said this several times (including just above). We are an encyclopaedia after all. I don't know that it is worth dealing with this in the introduction, since there are more important things to include there (its classification, what the story is about, elaborations, and I'd like to see something about its relationship to other stories in the region, particularly older ones that had some influence on it). I'm curious, has it been your intention to try and suppress this information? It's fairly basic information. Ben (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Point-of-view. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Ben (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well this is where I disagree with you Ben, or so it would seem. A sizable minority, particularly in the US, believe that the story of NA is historically accurate. They believe this because their religious teaching and beliefs tell them so. It is not the job of WP to determine the truth or otherwise of religious beliefs. Do you disagree or am I misunderstanding you? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said, but perhaps you didn't quite mean what you wrote. It is not the job of WP to determine anything, let alone the truth of religious beliefs, as documented at WP:OR. We are required to reflect what notable and reliable sources say though, giving due weight proportional to the significance of the points of view, as documented at WP:NPOV. If you're asking that the article neglect to mention certain facts that some readers may find offensive, then let me point you to WP:CENSOR (and the wikilinks contained there). Ben (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we must use reliable sources and that WP is not censored but there are certain questions that reliable sources do not answer, in particular questions about the truth or otherwise of religious beliefs. For example some people believe that God exists and others do not. As a more extreme example, some people believe that the world was literally created in seven days. These people may believe that their religious teachings override any scientific evidence. There are no reliable sources stating that these people that they are wrong. What there are, are reliable sources stating that the scientific evidence is contrary to their beliefs and that scientists universally believe them be to be wrong. Where I do agree with you wholeheartedly is that we must oppose religious belief masquerading as science. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Your language isn't clear to me again. What does it mean to say "these people are wrong"? Are they wrong to believe it? No. Are the wrong when they assert there was an actual worldwide flood? Yes. As editors, we must be clear that the story and notable opinions on it are independent. We don't write "According to Genesis .. blah blah .. there was a worldwide flood, some people believe it but science says it's impossible". We deal with the story, and we deal with the notable commentary in other sections.

So, do you agree that the opening sentence should not support any particular POV?

We must keep in mind that it's not just the people who hold the story to be historical that will look up this article. Indeed, it's possible that the majority of readers are people who do not hold such views on account of the 'historical group' being in the minority (in fact, considering the polls wikimedia has done on readership, the probability of this is likely quite high). Regardless of the make-up of our readership though, there has been significant and notable coverage of the scientific merits of the story, and readers are likely to be interested in this coverage. As I've said time and again, as an encyclopaedia it is our duty to give due weight to significant views, regardless of what those views are. Ben (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again I agree. We must present the whole spectrum of views on the subject, based on reliable sources representing those views and giving each view appropriate weight. The scientific observations and conclusions of those who have studied the evidence should also be presented. But, we cannot do this in one sentence, thus the opening sentence must not support any particular view.Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

My proposed introductory sentence does not present any point of view. The word mythology is used specifically to avoid doing that. Ben (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I just reread that after getting out of the shower, obviously I meant it does not present any point of view with respect to historicity. Ben (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ben, your last comment just above seems to be making another kind of fallacy here, by turning the question of historicity into an all-or-nothing, dichotomous one, based on the scientific feasibility of a "global" flood - as opposed to merely a "local" one. Whereas the sources we've seen, ought to have indicated that there are plenty of authors willing to accept that there could have been such a historical event, but without assuming a flood on the entire globe. There is actually a spectrum of published ideas - from those suggest that mankind was not that widespread at the time, and therefore a global flood would not be necessary to drown all the inhabited areas, but that the story itself is accurate; and then there are other published povs who say the flood only wiped out Noah's tribe, or that the story was based on some real event that took place on a barge in the Euphrates, as we have seen. Saying "Aha! The entire story cannot be historical, because science says there aren't enough water molecules for a flood" or whatever, seems like an oversimplistic argument that does not take into account the full range of viewpoints, as we can and should reflect. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make any such fallacy, the sentence was to illustrate a point about keeping the story and interpretation of it separate. Ben (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to reiterate my frustration that this thread was started like it was. After his refusal to retract it, my assumption of good faith on Martin's part is at its limit. Ben (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ben,

• Your frustration is noted and understood. To your credit you have been very patient with this process, but it is time to bring it to a conclusion.
• We all know the issues, they have been hashed and now rehashed.
• There is enough common ground between all to find consensus. I remind all that consensus does not mean complete agreement, only agreement on common issues. The fact that both parties agree that WP is not a place for POV is worth a lot. So work from there, eliminate the bias.
• Also, there is sufficient POV on both sides to warrant careful consideration. I suggest that both sides take a deep breath, understand your own POV and try to eliminate it. Find neutral ground. *Remember if you cannot find neutral ground, eventually WP administrators will step in and resolve this, and probably to the liking of no one. So, if you would like to maintain ability to edit this page, then resolve the disagreement.
• I have contributed my opinion in a couple of places already, but mainly I suggest that both "myth" and "scripture" are too widely misinterpreted. Our purpose is to be clear. Follow WP policy, use other words to describe the ancient writings, not myth not scripture.

Good luck,SteveMc (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

SteveMc, if I could have concluded this at any time I would have. The problem, it seems to me anyway, is that some people just don't like the word mythology. This has had a massive bearing on the discussion, and it's not something that can be fixed - trying to make people like a term is an obvious waste of time. To avoid the term, however, conflicts with WP:NPOV. In terms of discussion, it's a stalemate, in terms of policy, NPOV should trump people not liking something. I'm not going to force my edits on the article though, so here we are. Ben (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ben, summarizing your statement, it appears that WP has conflicting policies, namely the "NPOV policy" versus the "avoidance-of-the-word-myth policy." Begging the question: When does a story become a myth? Interesting dilemma! And I agree with you, that merely disliking the word "myth" cannot justify not using it, especially if the story is indeed a myth. Indeed, when a story is no longer myth, NPOV policy would be followed to characterize it as myth. Are we at that point in time, where we can definitively says that Noah's story is myth? Maybe, but a third WP policy is also at play here: consensus. Seems to me that the NPOV is still adequately captured by the words "text," "publication," "prose," "writings," etc., especially for the introduction of the article. As you can tell, in my mind, I see no failure in NPOV by using these terms, even if the Ark story is a myth, but I do see a failure in NPOV by choosing to use the word "myth." SteveMc (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The 'myth policy' you refer to isn't a policy and it only says to avoid using the word to imply falsehood (not the case here). That Noah's Ark is a myth is practically undisputed by scholars in the field. There are several references for this given above, and the following from WP:NPOV applies:

Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Omitting important details is not neutral. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ben, We agree again on both points,

• The "myth policy" (as I call it) is a style standard, agreed, but still a standard none-the-less.
• Using the word "text" (or something similar) is still a fact describing the NA account, and a neutral one at that. That it leaves out the connotations of the word "myth" holds to NPOV, not violates it, especially in the introduction of an article.
• Again, consensus is the major policy guiding my recommendation here, which conforms to both the NPOV policy and WP use of myth, especially in the context of an introduction. So, consensus, NPOV, and stylistic policies are all followed.

Regards, SteveMc (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we mind if WP gives the impression that the story of Noah's Ark is generally accepted to be totally false?

Clearly, the scientific evidence is very much against the story of Noah's Ark being literally true, however, there are a significant number of people who believe, for religious reasons, that it is so, or nearly so. Reliable sources cannot answer questions such as this in the absolute sense, although they can clearly give the accepted scientific view on the subject. I believe that the article must clearly give the scientific objections to the literal truth of the story, however it is not the place of WP to make ultimate decisions on matters such as the truth of religious beliefs, and reliable sources are of no avail in this case. Thus I believe that we should avoid giving the impression that the Noah's Ark story is universally accepted to be completely untrue. This does not mean that we should not present the clear scientific case against it.

Martin, you're using the wrong terminology - science has nothing to do with Noah's Ark, and scientists don't even address it, let alone have an opinion on it. I think the people you're talking about are biblical scholars, who are a quite different breed. And for them, yes, total agreement that "mythology" is the appropriate word to use. (Although I'm not sure about Gleason Archer. Incidentally, you say that it's not for WP "to make ultimate decisions on matters such as the truth of religious beliefs." You're making a large, if common, assumption here, namely that our 20th/21st century AD beliefs about the nature of this story are the same as the beliefs 1st millenium Jews would have held. So far as anyone can tell, those first readers of the story didn't regard it as literal history - we, or some of us, do, but why should they do likewise? They regarded it as theology. But our theology is quite different to theirs - modern day literalists see the Resurrection as the centrepiece of their faith, and the historical accuracy of the Bible as central to it (if you can't trust all of the Bible, including Noah's Ark, how can you trust any of it, including the Resurrection?). There was no Resurrection in the 5th century BC, and no need to believe in the litral truth of Bible stories. I hope you see the relevance to your question, should we mind if WP gives gives the impression that the NA story is generally accepted as totally false: it's, No, we shouldn't, But, we shouldn't say it's totally false, either, because that would be a factually incorrect position - neither modern biblical scholars, nor 5th century Jews, believed it to be merely mistaken history.PiCo (talk) 11:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I strayed off the subject of the question a little. But you do seem to agree that we should not give the impression that the story is totally false.Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why the critical evaluation section was removed in its entirety. It does need a great deal of reworking, and I'm willing to clean up this entire section up to make sure it presents a crystal clear scientific view of Noah's Ark. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 07:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather you didn't. It was never the intention of that section to prove that the Ark was scientifically unfounded - and indeed it shouldn't be. Our aim is to describe beliefs, not prove or disprove them. Anyway, the section hasn't been removed, just shortened - it was far too long, and gave undue weight to the literalist pov. The new section has it as one subsection, balanced with another major pov. that of academic biblical scholarship. PiCo (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely a scientific, critical evaluation of the story should be an essential part of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

One major aspect of modern day NA scholarship involves the plausibility that such an event actually occurred. Your edits make a mere mention of these scholarly contentions, without explaining them any further. Furthermore, the scientific evaluation section does appear a little long, but according to the polls you cited, it appears that a a majority of the Christian and Muslim faith believe in the literalist interpretation (and probably far more who believe in certain aspects of the story). I ask that you leave the section alone for the timebeing, and I'll trim it, add more sources, clean it up, etc. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nishkid, that section wasn't/isn't a about the "scientific" evaluation of the Ark, since no such evaluation exists. It's about the literalist interpretation. How much do you actually know about the Ark story? Have you ever heard of Noth, for example? PiCo (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Will the use of 'mythology' in the opening sentence give a significant number of readers that impression?

As can be seen from the discussions on this page, the word 'mythology' is understood differently by different people. I do not consider myself uneducated, yet I initially thought that the word 'mythology' carried an implication if falsehood. My ignorance, I admit but unfortunately true. I accept that in academic circles the word 'mythology' does not imply falsehood but we are writing for the general reader. What is written in the opening sentence is generally taken as a summary of the subject and if this states that the story is mythology, the impression will be given to some people that the story is known to be false.

No, it won't - provided we explain that "mythology" doesn't merely mean "false".PiCo (talk) 11:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I know from another article that people often do not read infoboxes. Where should we give this explanation and should we not do that before we use the word? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes "myth" carries an implication of falsehood, that is why WP policy, at WTA:Myth and legend, states that its use should be rare. Avoid it here, stick to the facts we do know for certain: The story of Noah's ark is found in religious accounts, the accuracy of which cannot be confirmed by other sources. SteveMc (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This question is the heart of the discussion that dominates this page. While Ben insists that the word "mythology" is neutral and therefore acceptible in the opening sentence, TE, MH, CS, and SM recognize it is not. According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary (G. & C. Merriam Company, Publishers, Springfield, MA, USA, 1976, page 1497), "mythical" means: "1a: based on or described in a myth esp. as contrasted with factual history: imaginary, fancied, and existent only in myths" and "b: fabricated, invented, or imagined in a consciously arbitrary way ... or ignorantly and willfully without facts or in defiance of facts." The entry ends: "syn see FICTITIOUS". The first definition for "myth" in the Oxford English Dictionary (M, page 818) is: "1. A purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions, or events..." The fact is that the words "myth", "mythical", and "mythology" are not neutral. This conclusion is neither a majority nor a minority POV, but the verdict of recognized authorities on the English language. At present the main article does not include this word in the opening sentence, and it should stay that way -- some of the alternatives offered here would be equally acceptible.RDavS (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Are there any reasonable alternatives?

As I have said before, and make no apology for repeating, the word 'scripture' meets all the criteria for use in this context. That the story is mentioned in various scriptures is accurate, verifiable, and neutral, and carries with it no unintended implications. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

To the word "myth"? Probably not - it's scholarly, accurate, and I can't think of another. But, as TilE points out, some 60% of Americans believe in the literal truth of the story (figures for England are much lower, and for Europe lower still). That also needs to be pointed out. PiCo (talk) 11:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with 'scripture? In what way is it not scholarly or accurate? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would repeat what has been said by others, it is from the the fact that the story is in religious texts that it derives its notability. Were it not for that fact it would be an insignificant piece of forgotten mythology. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, Martin, but I'm not sure of the significance of the fact that the Ark also appears in the Book of Enoch and in the Koran - the general view is that the Genesis story came first, and the others are glosses on it. Primacy goes to Genesis, in other words. Personally, I suspect this might be wrong, and that it's possible both Genesis and Enoch might be drawing on an earlier work or body of works, or even that Genesis draws on Enoch, but that's only a personal opinion. Anyway, that aside, I have no objection to a first sentence that says something like: "Noah's Ark is the mythical vessel in Hebrew scripture in which God, through Noah, saves a chosen remnant of mankind and a stock of the earth's animals from the Deluge". You, I gather, would be happy with that too, but only if the word "mythical" were cut. Let's see if we can find a modus vivendi. PiCo (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to leave the question of Abrahamic/Judeo-Christian/Hebrew to those who know more about the subject. How about "Noah's Ark is a vessel from Hebrew scripture..."? Martin Hogbin (talk)

Yes, use words like "text" or "publication" that do not imply belief, avoid "myth" or "scripture." Use of words like "story" or "prose" are also neutral. Simply state that "ancient prose" or "ancient text" tells of Noah and his ark. SteveMc (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)::

I cannot see why the word 'scripture' is not neutral, although I have no objection to 'text'. I think we agree, however, that the opening sentence must be scrupulously neutral. I am happy to support whatever form of wording achieves that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Martin, in many, if not most contexts, "scripture" would be NPOV. For example, when describing the beliefs of Christians, WP could say, with NPOV, that scripture describes their beliefs. (In fact, scripture usually describes the beliefs of a religious faith.) However, when describing historical facts, scripture may not be an acceptable source of history. In the case of the ark, ancient writings may be both sources of history and sources of scripture. For an opening statement, using a NPOV would be most beneficial, so I suggest trying to use the more NPOV statement to describe the writings, in this case "ancient text." Then, in the article go on to describe the use and validity of the account as both history and scripture. Just my opinion, SteveMc (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not quite follow your argument but 'ancient texts' would be fine with me for the opening. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Be happy to clarify, if needed. If so, please advise what is unclear. Thanks, SteveMc (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, how can the word "scripture" be prejudicial? You say "ancient writings" talk about Noah's Ark, but the only ancient writings that do so are scripture (Genesis, Enoch, Koran) - or do you have something else in mind? PiCo (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

PiCo, "scriptural" is not necessarily prejudicial in all cases, but in this case scripture creates a POV status for this story, that is all. Scripture is not prejudicial to describe religious faith, but it could be prejudicial to describe historical accounts. I have nothing else in mind. Since there are many ancient writings (other than those listed) that are not scriptural, the fact that NA is part of scripture creates a POV that could prejudice the WP reader into accepting the NA account without consideration, especially given the considerations of modern scholars, and that is no place for an encyclopedia. SteveMc (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the origin of the story is ancient religious texts. I think stating this ('scripture' redirects to 'religious texts' and I would be perfectly happy to use 'religious texts') does not give either the impression that it is a load of nonsense (which 'mythology' does) or that it is the true word of God, which you must believe. Scripture (or religious texts) simply makes clear that the story has religious origins, which is a verifiable fact. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Martin, I accept your point: which begs the question, when does text become religious text? (That is rhetorical, please do not answer.) To some scripture is credible, to others scripture is myth, even nonsense, certainly not the word of a god or the God. Again, for an introduction and for the sake of consensus, "text" provides a NPOV, "scripture" is not NPOV (sorry for the double negative). Regards, SteveMc (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say that any text which refers to God giving commands is a religious text. From my limited knowledge of the subject I would say that the first texts containing stories about Noah's Ark were religious. In other words, there are no earlier texts describing the same story in non-religious terms. Thus the origin of the stories is religious texts. Saying that does not support any POV, it is a universally agreed, and no doubt verifiable, fact. Unlike the use of 'mythology', stating that the story comes from religious texts does not, in my opinion, suggest to the reader either the truth or the falsehood of the story. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Martin, this discussion is going in circles, again! We are searching for consensus in the introduction of an encyclopedia. I wonder if that is lost on some editors? And hence why the main page is locked, again! Regards, SteveMc (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one else has suggested that saying the story originated from religious texts is POV. I am not even sure what the implied POV is meant to be. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Martin, I understand your concern, and the POV may be subtle, but I would not pretend to enlighten any one. I repeat, again, it is a suggestion for sake of consensus in the introduction of an encyclopedic entry. The story of NA is "text" and that is a fact, without either the "religious" qualifier or the "mythological" qualifier makes it a neutral fact. The fact that NA is part of religious text can be more completely explained in the body of the entry. Regards, SteveMc (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow Martin, this logic must look painfully familiar, right? You both need to realise a few things. Noah's Ark is considered mythological by the majority of scholars. What you do or do not like is irrelevant. Ignoring this fact, or trying to substitute in different phrases that aren't used by the majority of (or more likely, any) scholars, is both unencyclopaedic and non-neutral. In pushing this type of nonsense, you're doing the project a disservice. There will never be a 'nicest sounding phrase', and editors will never stop arguing over trying to achieve that. Instead, we must support the neutral terminology. It is backed by policy, not gut feeling, and anyone wishing to argue the phrasing will in turn have to argue in terms of policy. Ben (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ben, not sure that the phrase, "(y)ou both need to..." refers to me, but if so, I assure that I do recognize that. But I also recognize that these text are part of large religious traditions, and believed by millions still today. The neutral thing to do is what I have stated. Regards, SteveMc (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to familiarise yourself with WP:NPOV and note that neutral point of view does not mean no point of view. Mythology is the neutral term. Ben (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ben, I have read it many times! I stand by my recommendation! Regards, SteveMc (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, you say the POV is subtle, but it seems that it is so subtle that you cannot tell me what it is. I am asking as simple question. What POV does the term 'religious text' promote? It is not meant to be a trick question just a genuine inquiry. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Martin, I will consider your request and get back with you. SteveMc (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have provided my thoughts regarding Martin's request on my User Talk page at User_talk:Stevenwmccrary58/ReligiousNPOV. Please join in the discussion, if you desire. Any discussion meaningful to this page will be brought back here. The only rule is to keep it civil. Regards, SteveMc (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

New section - Ark in Current Interpretations

The new section has two parts. The first summarises some - not all - academic scholarship of the last hundred years. The second deals with the more popular idea of a literal Ark. The second section is based on the previous section(s) dealing with this area, but drastically shortened. The existing section went into far too much detail - not so much exhaustive as exhausting. As a result, it was giving undue weight to one particular pov, namely literalism. Please discuss how you see this new section. PiCo (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The section you eliminated completely is a section which achieved consensus after weeks of discussion, extensive referencing, and contributions from a number of editors. You stood alone at that time in objecting to it, and you have never ceased to attempt radical edits to it, even to the extent of removing it entirely.

What section is that, exactly?PiCo (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The section I entitled 'Critical evaluation'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What you wrongly term the 'literalist' POV (see previous extensive discussion on this), is simply the POV that the Ark was a historical vessel. That happens to be a highly significant POV within the Christian community, as the Gallup poll demonstrated, so the material included in it was not in breach of WP:WEIGHT. This was demonstrated by the many references which were provided. You attempted for weeks to eliminate any references to Christian views of the Ark which do not treat it as a historical vessel, and instead treat the Ark narrative as allegory, and you also attempted for weeks to describe as 'Biblical literalism' any POV which considers the Ark to be a historical vessel, even if that POV was not in fact a Biblical literalist POV. You tried using the term 'Biblical literalist' repeatedly, despite it being pointed out repeatedly that the term was pejorative and not to be used, not to mention the inappropriateness of using it to describe POVs which were not 'Biblical literalist'. You later switched to the equally inaccurate term 'literalist', which is an ambiguous term on Wikipedia, and which in this context will be read as 'Biblical literalist' (as you intended it to be read), which is inaccurate.

Belief in a literal Ark, is literalism - it's pretty straightforward, really, and I don't see your point. Nor it the term "literalism" pejorative.PiCo (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. Belief in a literal Ark is treating the Ark as a historical vessel. This does not connote literalism. The term 'literalist' in Wikipedia is an ambiguous term. In the context of a Biblical narrative it will be read as 'Biblical literalist' (as you intend), which is an inaccurate description of views which are not Biblical literalist views, and which is a pejorative term. I have explained this all repeatedly.

I note that you have recently been over to the Biblical literalism article and removed any mention of the fact that it is used as a pejorative term. That is a clear indication that you are pushing an agenda. You are deliberately changing what Wikipedia says about that term in order to try and remove it from Wikipedia's list of pejoratives, so you can use it in this article. This demonstrates beyond doubt that you are determined to describe as Biblical literalism all views which regard the Ark as a historical vessel. You are absolutely dedicated to using this term, and you are prepared to edit related articles so that they support your POV in order to justify your use of the term. Editing Wikipedia articles specifically so that they support your personal views, and so you can appeal to them in editing disputes, is POV editing. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What we have here is your latest attempt to remove a section to which you have long objected, and which achieved consensus after weeks of discussion, extensive referencing, and contributions from a number of editors. Your contributions to this article have overwhelmingly been efforts to remove material rather than add it, you don't add references from reliable sources, and you consistently target for removal any material which describes the case for the Ark's historicity. Your editing history of this article is clearly biased. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles on Wiki are subject to constant change and improvement, that's the nature of the beast. If you don't like this, I can only suggest that write a book instead. PiCo (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not objected to change or improvement of the article, as you well know. I have objected to your consisted biased editing of this article, your repeated attempts to bulldoze through your edits without discussion, and your repeated refusals either to discuss your edits or to enter informal mediation over editing disputes. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

While we're here, what are your thoughts on the other part of the new section, the one that deals with modern scholarly thinking? PiCo (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I provided them below. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The section badly needs some citations, some of which I can help out with (when I wake up, I'm about to go to bed). I can't vet all the information in it, though nothing stands out as contradicting what I have read, so no complaints there. I'm a little worried about where links are placed though. For instance, as far as I know flood geology is alive and well today, but its main article link is only present in the 19th century section. One final comment before I head to bed (sorry if all of this seems too brief), it might be worth shortening the section heading to "Current interpretations". Cheers, Ben (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Oh, it might be worth copying what has been removed into this section (but hiding it in a hat/hab environment as I did in one of the previous sections)? Ben (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added some citations, most of them primary (i.e., tracing ideas to the scholars who originated them). If you think more are needed, please add tags. PiCo (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

See my response above. In addition, the scientific explanation does not target the literalist interpretation of Noah's Ark. Instead, it targets the story itself, and explains the various scientific inconsistencies that have been asserted by modern scholars. This has been a major part of NA scholarship in the last few hundred years, and it deserves a more comprehensive section than what you have provided. Considering that Noah's Ark is one of the most recognizable stories from the Bible, it's a shame that the article has been cut down to a measly 39KB in length. The referencing is shoddy (where's the scholarship? All I see are Internet sources!), there are MoS errors, and other issues – I'm considering a possible FAR if these issues aren't resolved. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nishkid, there is no such thing as the scientific evaluation of Noah's ark. The section you're talking about is an explanation of the literalist interpretation, and that's a very vaild part of the subject. But we aren't allowed to argue the case, either for or against - our job is just to explain it. Who believes in a real ark, and why. Also, I get the impression that you don't actually know much about biblical scholarship - what is your background in this area? PiCo (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

PiCo, is that question germane to this discussion? Last I looked, WP does not credential its editors. SteveMc (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There will certainly be commentaries by notable atheist scientists (Dawkins springs to mind) that should be mentioned in this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Dawkins is an authority on this. Maybe in my suggestion below, where commentary can be fleshed out. Ben (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Publications by Dawkins would certainly represent one reliable source for atheist opinion on NA. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how atheist opinions are weighty enough for inclusion here. Ben (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

PiCo, credentials have no bearing on my ability to edit this article. Regarding the section, I admit that I incorrectly referred to the section as scientific evaluation, since it's more of literalist POV + rebuttal. However, modern scholarship relies heavily on scientific explanations of certain aspects of the story – e.g. could we have sustained enough genetic diversity to maintain a healthy population?, and I believe the article should not cover these topics in such a superficial manner. To relieve your concerns regarding the undue weight being given to the literalist POV, we could possibly refactor this section into a critical evaluation and a literalist rebuttal section. As a newcomer to this article, I'd like to hear more about your thoughts on this matter. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There is more than enough material on critical evaluation to support an article on its own, so it's almost certain coverage of it here will be superficial to some degree. I still think a separate article would be the best way to deal with this. Is there a way to do that without it playing the role of a POV fork? Ben (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest we start a new article on literal interpretations of Noah's Ark? It's certainly notable enough and there is plenty of material to support such an article. It could also neatly incorporate the Searches for Noah's Ark article, and it could serve as a template for other notable "literal interpretations of X" type articles (creation according to genesis being the most obvious).

There is another advantage, directly related to Nishkid's/PiCo's concerns above. The scientific evaluation of certain claims in the Noah's Ark story has been used by scholars over the last couple of centuries, this is already touched upon in the article, but perhaps could be expanded a little. It has also been used to counter literalism stances, which brings us to the advantage of having the above article. This scholarship sections in this article could briefly talk about how the results of the scientific evaluations influenced scholarship, and the literal article could go into specifics of the scientific evaluations. The rationale being that all the details of the scientific evaluations are not necessary to understand how scholarship has changed and where it is at now, but is much more important in explaining literal interpretations and evaluations of such positions. We give an overview of the new article in this article, with a main article link to the new article. Nothing gets cut, and everything seems to be in a logical place.

This idea may need tweaking, but I think it has a lot of merit. What do you think PiCo, Nishkid? Ben (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about it, it would be too much like a POV fork, so maybe that's not the best idea. Ben (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

One article on Noah's Ark is plenty. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, oh, let me counter your brilliant argument with: I disagree. Ben (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, creating a POV fork isn't such a great idea. See my suggestion above. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

New suggestion for new section/subsections on contemporary views

Thank you Til for what you said in your last edit summary - words of sanity. I hear you.

OK, let me re-posit my suggestion in new terms:

• 1: I believe we need a section on 20th/21st century interpretations of the ark - contemporary views, if you like to call it that. This seems logical, given that the article at present takes a historical plan, going from ancient/medieval traditions to the 18th/19th century - why should it stop there as if nothing happened since except the literalist view?
  • QUESTION: Do you agree or disagree? (or have other views/suggestions?)
  • REPLIES

I agree with this. The article already had such a section, which was both detailed and well referenced. You removed it.Taiwan boi (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm about to head off to bed, but I'll evaluate the two versions of the article and compare the current interpretations sections. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there should be commentary on all significant interpretations, each based on reliable sources . Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the article as it now stands, you'll find that there is commentary on all significant interpretations, each based on reliable sources. PiCo's edits have been aimed at removing the distinction between these different interpretations (literalist and non-literalist views), and deleting one of them (the allegorical interpretation). It would help if people familiarized themselves with the current article content, so they know what's already there. That will save them suggesting that we include material which the article already contains. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• 2: Given that I personally would like to see this new section on contemporary views, I'd like to see it have 2 subsections, one on the views of biblical scholarship, one on the literalist interpretation (which is important, since the polls say 60% of Americans hold this view).
  • QUESTION: Do you agree or disagree, or have other ideas entirely?
  • REPLIES

The section on contemporary views already provided views from current Biblical scholarship as well as literalist, non-literalist, and allegorical interpretations. You removed the allegorical interpretations, and attempted to classify both the literalist and non-literalist interpretations as 'literalist' interpretations, as well as removing the distinction between views of Biblical scholarship and non-scholarly views. I don't see any reason to depart from the section which was previously in the article.Taiwan boi (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• 3: If we are to have a new subsection on 20th/21st century scholarly views, I propose the following:

Modern scholars generally see the Ark story as the centrepiece of a narrative panel within the Book of Genesis which they have termed the Primeval Narrative.[29] Taking up Genesis 1-11, the chapters tell how God created a perfect world in which mankind would be his regent, but how man rebelled against God, causing God to destroy his creation (the Ark/Flood story). God forgives man (the Noahide covenant at the end of the Ark story), yet man rebels again (the Tower of Babel story); this second rebellion, however, is forgiven without destruction, and God instead scatters man across the earth, each nation to its own alloted land. The Primeval Narrative then joins with the main theme of Genesis, the story of Abraham and the land promised to the Chosen People, the descendants of Noah's son Shem.[30]

This story was apparently written in the 5th century BC, taking existing Babylonian myths as its basis, but altering them to give the story a distinctive twist in accordance with Hebrew monotheism: in place of the many gods of the Babylonian Atrahasis myth, Noah deals with Yahweh, the god of Israel, and in place of the essential pessimism of the Babylonian story, where things get worse and worse over time, the message of the Genesis story is essentially optimistic, with a God who forgives rebellion and guides his chosen people to their land.[31] Both the Babylonian and the Genesis Ark are symbolic rather than real vessels: both are images of their respective universes, the seven-story cube-shaped vessel of Utnapishtim mirroring the seven levels of the Babylonian cosmos, the three levels of Noah's ark imitating the three levels of the Hebrew world described in Genesis 1 (the skies, the habitable earth of mankind, and the watery underworld below).[32] The Flood itself recapitulates the six days of Creation, but in reverse: it begins in the second month, mirroring the second day of Creation when the habitable earth is created, mounts with the Ark until the sixth month, rests on the mountains on the seventh month (as Yahweh himself rested on the seventh day), and then retreats for a further six months until the earth is recreated and the Ark is no longer needed.[33]

• • QUESTION: Assuming we do decide to have a section on this subject, are you happy with this as a basis? (The superscript numerals refer to points where citations are to be given).
  • REPLIES

This is a repeat of some material which is already in the article (near the beginning, where it belongs), and contains material which is not only irrelevant to current views (discussing instead speculations about original intent and meaning), but also presents only one POV, and that a minority view within scholarship (why not present the scholarly consensus?). You haven't even demonstrated that the POV you want to include here is sufficiently significant for inclusion.Taiwan boi (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• 4: Whether we agree to the above new section or not, I propose that we have a single section on the literalist interpretation of the Ark, and that it be shorter than the current amount of space devoted to this - simply because it's distorting the balance of the article. (Note: "literal" here means the belief in a real, tangible ark - let's not argue semantics, please).
  • QUESTION: Do you agree or not, or do you have other views?
  • REPLIES

This is misleading because when you say 'literalist interpretation' you don't really mean 'literalist interpretation' you mean 'any interpretation which treats the Ark as a historical vessel'. The view that the Ark was a historical vessel is not only a highly significant POV but remains the majority POV, so the extent of material on this POV which was originally in the article does not breach WP:WEIGHT. You are suggesting that we essentially remove any reference to this POV, or treat it as if it was the minority POV. That simply doesn't abide by Wikipedia editing policies.Taiwan boi (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a point we need to clarify. Biblical literalism refers to the strictest adherence to each word of Biblical scripture. I think there are some who believe in a real and tangible ark, but aren't what we would call biblical literalists. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. What PiCo has tried to do is to classify any view which regards the Ark as a historical vessel as a literalist view. This is clearly incorrect. Robert Best believes the Ark was a historical vessel, but he is anything but a literalist. Plenty of secular scholars believe a historical flood was the basis for the entire flood narrative, but are not literalists. As PiCo explained on your Talk page, his intention is to reduce as much as possible any mention of Christian POVs regarding the Ark as a historical vessel (despite the fact that this remains the majority view in Christianity), and to brand as literalist any views which regard the Ark as a historical vessel. He also wants to remove any reference to views of the Ark as allegorical. You will note that he has deliberately edited the Biblical literalism article to remove any reference in the article to the fact that it is a pejorative term. His reason for doing so is so that he can use the term in the Noah's Ark article to describe any view which regards the Ark as a historical vessel. The edit I have supported differentiates clearly between literalist views which regard the Ark as a historical vessel, non-literalist views which also regard the Ark as a historical vessel, and allegorical or other views which do not regard the Ark as a historical vessel. That section provides [[WP:RS|reliable sources] for each view. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

By "literal" I mean a tangible, touchable ship. Not really any disagreement here. PiCo (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is well understood that you are speaking of views which hold to the historicity of the Ark as a 'tangible, touchable ship'. But where we disagree is on the fact that you wish to describe any and all such views as 'literalist' views, by which you mean Biblical literalism. As Nishkid64 has pointed out, and as I have pointed out repeatedly, not all views which hold to the historicity of the Ark are 'literalist', still less Biblical literalist. That's the issue here, and you know it. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should have a section on the view that the Ark was an actual vessel that had a significant impact on subsequent evolution of all animals and the development of humans. It would seem that this view is quite widely held but it is clearly one which is at odds with the scientific evidence, which we also need to make clear. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The section which is in there now already does that. This section describes the different views (including Christian views which do not regard the Ark as a historical vessel), giving weight to the majority Christian viewpoint, which is that the Ark was a historical vessel. This section describes the various criticisms of the Ark from reliable sources, including scientific opinions:

• Did Noah Really Build An Ark? 'It would have been about 450ft long, and experts say it would have broken apart'
• 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'
• 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'

I have yet to see a sound reason for the suggested edit. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case I support the view that that section (or an adequate replacement) should remain in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• 5: Assuming we do decide to revise the section(s) on the literal-ark pov, I propose we let Nishkid64 do this - he's already offered to do so in an earlier post, if I read him correctly. He's new and he's neutral, so let him produce a draft edit that we can then work on.
  • QUESTION: Do you agree/disagree, assuming Nishkid64 also agrees?
  • REPLIES

Given that Nishkid64 is both new and has yet to demonstrate any familiarity with the relevant material, I don't see why he should be the first choice for a draft edit. I'm the one editor here with the greatest familiarity with the relevant material, and I am the one editor here who has contributed the most number of reliable sources to this article (over 40), as well has the one editor here with the greatest number of consensus supported edits. I've also demonstrated my capacity to be neutral, removing POV material from Christians who have attempted to bias the article towards their views, and raising no objections to the use of the term 'mythology'. I'm not saying that I'm the one who should draft a new edit (though my previous drafts of this section received consensus approval), but I am saying that with all due respect there are better qualified editors for the task than Nishkid64. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This article will be a challenge, but I'm up for the task. I certainly will accept all help I can get. Throughout my wiki career, I've demonstrated that I can conduct thorough research and compose comprehensive and well-written articles. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What I'm interested in is your personal knowledge of the relevant scholarly literature and history of interpretation of this particular subject. I'm also interested in which research tools you use (note that Google is not a research tool, JSTOR is). What can you tell me? --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, what exactly are you looking for? I know the stories, the development of skeptic scholarship (flood geology, for example) and its level of acceptance amongst scholars and the populace in the present day. I am a university student, so I have access to journals, newspapers, books, etc. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I'm trying to be calm and rational here. No article is ever perfect, but if we work together, we can get close. PiCo (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(Note: I've taken the liberty of resorting Taiwanboi's responses so they're under the individual questions - easier to follow that way. Please other editors reply to each question individually). PiCo (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis

I have been doing a bit of reading about WP policy on sources. What I am looking for I finally found at Synthesis of published materials. I suggest that everyone take a look at that, remembering that it is not sufficient for WP editors to do their own synthesis of opinion, as that would be original research as well. At this point, there are plenty of references on each side, at least as I see it. I suggest a discussion about source quality is now needed. SteveMc (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)