Talk:Noah's Ark

Template:FAOL

Archives
Archive 1: March 2004 - February 2006 Archive 2: February 2006 - April 12 Archive 3: April 12, 2006 - December 31, 2006 Archive 4: December 30, 2006 - February 13, 2007 Archive 5: Feb 13, 2007 -

Noah's Ark: The Truth!

It was the Nommos.

POV tag

Someone added a POV tag to the article but gave no reason on the talk page. So I removed it. PiCo 02:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, he did, but you have to wade through the "Category:Mythological Ships" thread to find it. However, it should be gone anyway as someone else has since removed the category. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The POV tag was removed, and the category was restored. This is silly. Orangemarlin 02:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh. I have no interest in categories, any categories. Codex, your quarrel is with the category, not the article - take your POV tag over there, but leave it off the article, please. PiCo 02:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Codex, you are getting no support in your edit war. I have placed WP:3RR warning on your talk page. You have actually exceeded three, but I think as a long-time editor you deserve some compassion. Your placing the POV tag is a one-man war, so relax and try to find consensus. And if you can't get consensus, is it possible that maybe you might be a bit off-base? Orangemarlin 04:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You are not the Judge here who decides who is entitled to your "compassion" and who isn't, who in utter arrogance seeks to dictate what doctrines are to be declared "mythology" and what doctrines meet your approval. These things were already decided by other bodies for significant numbers of followers, NOT BY WIKIPEDIA. This is a violation of NPOV, I have every RIGHT as an editor to dispute the article, and you have no RIGHT to declare the dispute over when it is still being disputed. This dispute will continue and will not stop until some sanity is restored here. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DECLARE ONE WORLD RELIGION'S DOCTRINES "MYTHOLOGY" WHILE STATIMG THAT ANOTHER RELIGION'S DOCTRINES ARE NOT "MYTHOLOGY" BECAUSE YOU PERSONALLY DO NOT THINK SO. I WILL POINT OUT THIS BLATANT POV VIOLATION TO VERYONE AND ALL MEDIA INCLUDING JIMBO WALES. THIS IS THE MOST CLASSIC VIOLATION OF THE CONCEPT OF "POV" ANYONE COULD IMAGINE, I COULD NOT DESIGN A MORE TEXTBOOK CASE OF WHAT IT MEANS TO TRAMPLE ALL OVER "NEUTRALITY". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I can be as compassionate as I choose to be, that is an essential human right. But I'm not getting into that philosophical discussion. By every definition of the word mythology, this is one. Let's refer to the trusty Oxford English Dictionary, which states that mythology is a body or collection of myths, esp. those relating to a particular person or thing, or belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition. It is a completely neutral description of this story. The reason it is a myth is that lacking scientific proof of all that would be necessary for this ship to have ever existed (for example, a global flood), it could not, in fact, ever existed. And to call me "anti-religious" is amusing. I'm anti-pseudoscience, but we're not placing that tag on this story. Orangemarlin 15:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

CS has been a problem on numereous articles, and pretty much every time I've run into him he's shown the same lack of understanding of precendent, the NPOV policy, and the word mythology, not to mention the idea that fundamentalist Christianity is not the only viewpoint. I brought up the category because I thought fictional ships was not an intuitive category for the Ark, but it incontrovertibly belongs in Category: Mythological Ships. I proposed its creation here and elsewhere, where people who actually deal with ship categories tend to watch. Titanium Dragon 16:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never once argued that Fundamentalist Christianity is the only viewpoint. I suppose it is one among several viewpoints. Neutrality means not endorsing any viewpoint, such as the ones that call this mythology when other viewpoints dispute the accuracy of that label and they are not insignificant. I would also oppose labelling the Quran mythology, having read it, because it is a sacred text of a world religion followed today, not because I agree or disagree with it or simply because it contains many religious stories that some would call historical and others would not call historical. "Mythology" is a loaded word that has always been used to express a POV. It hasn't suddenly acquired some new innocence just now. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Codex has been blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR. I wish it wasn't necessary but the reverts were becoming disruptive. Categorizing the ship as "mythological" does not make the article POV, in my opinion. However, without the disruptive and argumentative element, I would suggest we come to a viable consensus with CALM opinions from all of the editors. I'm willing to support the consensus, but right now, my belief is that this ship is mythological. What say ye? Orangemarlin 17:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand how the Noah's Ark story could NOT be mythology, under any of dozens of definitions. We have no physical ark to study. We have no reasonable evidence that an ark ever existed, aside from a few stories from a few different traditions that do not agree with each other. Everything we know about the ark and the description of the flood screams that it is an allegorical story at best, and certainly does not approach "fact" at all. This has been known for centuries, and if any one disputes it, frankly it casts a very negative light on their ability to reason and make judgements. Fundamentalist Christians that believe in biblical inerrancy constitute a teeny tiny fraction of the population, and for their own twisted and vile hatemongering reasons they want to push this agenda aggressively to spew their hatred and illogic on Wikipedia. I would suggest strongly that this be resisted, and that Noah's Ark be definitely categorized as mythology. To categorize it as anything else is the height of inanity, and dishonest and misleading. There are plenty of right wing religious sites on the internet. Let them spew their nonsense there. --Filll 17:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Mythology says, "As discussed above, the status of a story as myth is unrelated to whether it is based on historical events." That seems to me to cover the objections of those that believe that the story is an historical event. Seems like a rather silly category, though. But that's another discussion. Carlo 00:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The agenda of those who want to declare the story of Noah's Ark a mythology is absolutely clear to anyone who follows this talk page. These are the same parties who seem to spend all their time on this talk page trying to engage any editors they can in a continual discussion not about actual article content, but about whether or not wikipedia can do some research to decide or declare the story fictional. Mythological is a synonym of fictional, compare the conversation in the vry similar talk section "Fictional ships". It may have other more ambiguous meanings to some academicians, but everyone knows how most English speakers use the term, in the same sense that they are always arguing. I would like to see Wikipedia remain neutral and not declare any of the great religious texts or any of the significant world views that are practised in the world today to be either true or false. However they seem to be operating on behalf of a particular world view that seeks to have all others declared either false or mythological. This is very poor word choice, calling someone else's firm beliefs "mythology" is polemical at best, and if it is as innocent as they claim, they should find a more neutral word to express what they are really trying to say. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what word would you prefer? Noah's Ark is every bit as mythological as the story of Ulysses' escape from the cyclops. That people choose to believe it as fact is a separate issue. •Jim62sch• 22:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Noah's ark is not mythology. Pieces of the wood from the ark were Carbon 14 dated in 1953 to the correct period by two universities. The ark has been seen, flown over, photographed, sampled, stood on, etc. since 1840 by about 150 people from various nations. It is currently under many feet of ice (being at an altitude of 13,000 feet) and is to the best of my understanding is in an area controlled by Russian airspace so it can not be easily gotten to. If global warming experts are right, the ice will melt again soon some day and we will be able to view it again. Jbdm 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved your other comments to a new section below, in case you lost it. You'll need to provide a lot of peer-reviewed references before any of us buy it. And if all of the ice melted again, it would be a catastrophe for low-lying cities, but sorry, still not enough water to cover the world. It would raise the water level in the ocean by 64 m, or maybe 200 feet. The shoreline would move in a long way, but not enough to qualify as a global flood. And of course, not all of the ice could melt in global warming, unless we're talking seriously bad global warming, meaning the average temperature in the poles goes up by 20-40 degrees C. Orangemarlin 20:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

POV dispute and Featured article

Is that possible in one article? I suspect one has to be removed. 213.175.125.22 11:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel it needs to be unfeatured, be my guest to propose it for being removed from FA status. Titanium Dragon 19:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the POV tag that needs to be removed - it's ridiculous to tag a whole article because of a category dispute!PiCo 09:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I and other editors dispute the POV-pushing, opinionated nature of this controversial "mythology" category on this article about a religious teaching. I don't know of any more appropriate way or place to indicate that there is an active dispute with the article's point-of-view and taking sides. Also, if an article is featured, and then is actually altered in a manner calculated solely to endorse one POV and, incredulously, play the other POV off as 'insignificant' (I think that alone is what's provoking the comparisons to Stalinism) - does this mean editors are not allowed to dispute it at all, just because the article has a "featured" button on it? I would say remove the featured button at a minimum, if you are not going to NPOV the article. An NPOV article is one that is not openly antagonistic, one that does not proclaim one POV correct and all others (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) lying, when nothing has been proven to everyone's satisfaction, nor is likely to ever be. To take again your "Jesus as Myth" example, that is an article about a theory or POV, and it is made clear that it is only a POV or theory. This is a very similar situation because Noah and the Ark were very real acccording to many traditions that see him as a prophet, all over the Middle East but also all over the world. Of course we can't endorse any of those traditions either, but not endorsing any of them does not -logically- mean that we do have to attack them in the article. What the article should do is accurately explain what everyone's viewpoint of Noah is, all the significant groups, and not give one viewpoint or school of thought the seal of approval while belittling all the others. Calling Noah a myth is definitely POV, every bit as much as calling Jesus a myth. So maybe the solution would be to have a dedicated, separate article similar to "Jesus as myth", describing the ideas and views of some that Noah's Ark is a myth, you could even call it "Noah's Ark as myth" on the basis of the title "Jesus as myth". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No other editor aside from CS has "dispute[d] the POV-pushing, opinionated nature of this controversial "mythology" category". My emphasis. This tag has been removed. CS has continually shown to misunderstand what the Category:Mythology is for. If he has a problem with that category, he should argue against it ther and not prove a point using this article.

I have removed the NPOV tag. Reinsertion without a valid argument should be considered vanadalism.--ZayZayEM 01:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a falsehood to state that I am the only person disputing the mythology category. Please stop telling falsehoods. Be honest and tell the truth. A number of other editors on this page besides me have disputed this POV. This category is controversial and I am not giving up the dispute, I will get arbcom in on it if I have to because this is blatantly pushing a POV that wikipedia cannot push and remain credible as a neutral source. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the disputed Category. That way the NPOV tag is not required. Discussion on the Category should be continued off the article itself. What is next? An RFC? ^rossnixon

You have it exactly backward. Representing this minority religious opinion as fact, or possibly factual, is POV-pushing. Representing a scientific consensus as fact is not. Yes, I know you and a few others personally take the religious opinion as fact. The thing is, there are many religions, and unless you're prepared for all of them to be able to present their mythologies about the world's origin as fact as well, we can't privilege yours. (Doing that across the board would be a sea change in Wikipedia's stated mission, which clearly no one is going to agree to.) But science is science no matter what your religion, as long as you approach it honestly.

Comparing this to "Jesus as myth" creates a false analogy. (I acknowledge the article's title is misleading, since it describes a POV where Jesus is entirely mythical; that is, entirely a product of allegorical or symbolic story with no historical foundation. That this is not necessarily true I have already explained.) For a broader perspective, see Historicity of Jesus. Noah's Ark is, even in the most optimistic view, prehistoric. No one says that Noah himself ever wrote anything down, and Scripture doesn't even hint at the existence of writing at the time. This is the very definition of prehistory. And even Scripture is silent on the cultural context in which Noah lived. There's nothing there to grasp onto.

Jesus, however, lived during history. He is placed in a specific cultural context that we can identify and which seems in most details we can examine via archaeology to be accurate. We can't say exactly what he did from the historical record, but that's true of nearly all people from that period. Scripture says he lived right about the time we would have expected him to have based on the available evidence (e.g. stylistic analysis of the New Testament). We have little reason to doubt he actually existed even from an atheist POV. Some do, but in contrast to the situation with Noah, it is those who think Jesus is ahistorical who are in the minority. To state it in the most minimal possible terms, the historical existence of Jesus is credible.

Again, this does not mean he is not also mythological at the same time. "Mythology" simply means a body of stories in which people find meaning and some form of truth. This obviously has little bearing on whether or not the story is literally true. The fact that most mythologies are not is what has led to the word's connotation of "fictional". But at least some professional Christian mythologists knew differently, in examples I have already provided.

I really don't know why I'm bothering though. You have not bothered to meaningfully engage any of the other arguments presented; I have no reason to expect you will engage this one. But unless you do present some kind of valid argument, and don't simply continue to beat the same old drum, how can we possibly take this "dispute" seriously? TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

But TCC, who is trying to represent it as fact? Clearly you still haven't grasped what I am saying if you still think that's it. I guess I will have to keep explaining some more. Not callingit fact doesn't mean going to the opposite extreme or calling it a myth. It means total neutrality, which is not taking any position, and not taking any side. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No. I understand you perfectly. It's you who have still not grasped what is meant by "myth" even though it's been explained numerous times.

But there are two facets to this discussion. The meaning of "myth" is only one of them. The other is that we have no reason to leave the door open to a factual literal interpretation at all, so even words that out-and-out denote "fictional" are not out of place -- or would not be, if such words didn't always fail to express that the very purpose of such a story is to convey a truth. This isn't "taking sides". It's a perfectly neutral statement of the available evidence impartially considered.

This is now the third time I've asked this on this page. It is yet unanswered. Unless you can answer it I must conclude that there is no serious dispute to be made. What evidence is there, when impartially considered by someone ignorant of the Scriptural account, that would compel that person to conclude that a worldwide flood had occurred in the relatively recent past? Please give evidence that would not be contradicted by the 99% of geologists, astronomers, and physicists who do not share your religious views. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That is actully a total red herring, it doesn't matter a whit if there is any evidence or none for policy purposes, what matters is that we stay neutral between the SIGNIFICANT viewpoints. So it matters more that a significant number of followers of a significant number of creeds do have this viewpoint, not whether or not it can be proven. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No one would not describe the Ark as mythological. Maybe they'd use that word and maybe they wouldn't, but they'd agree it fits the defintion given in mythology. Its fairly clear at this point that you are disagreeing to disagree, because you have yet to produce any RS which would contest the mythology description. Titanium Dragon 05:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

CS, this is most disappointing, because I've much appreciated the good work you've done elsewhere. You're avoiding the issues presented yet again. I really wish you wouldn't. Far from a red herring, these are genuine concerns. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is Not a faslehood that CS is the only one claiming a POV dispute. I have requested clarification. Talk:Noah's_Ark#Is_there_a_Dispute Noone else has come forward saying they dispute it from a basis of neutrality. One other editor has disputed its usage on the basis of accuracy.

I was also originally disputing on the basis of accuracy, upon looking at wikipedia's guidelines for mythological categorisation - I have found and argued why this page belongs in mythology. Please confront your arguments against Wikipedia's usage of "Mythological" that is clearly used to classify events, people and objects pertaining to "a traditional story or narrative that embodies the belief or beliefs of a group of people" on the pages pertaining to Category:Mythology. I put quite a bit of effort into cleaning out Category:Mythological ships and creating Category:Legendary ships to clear up this matter of POV. There is a disclaimer on the Mythological category page explicitly explaining that such categorisation does not aim to push any POV as towards the inherent truthfulness or falsity of such narratives.

Please remain Cool and do not threaten other editors with arbcom.--ZayZayEM 06:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

From RfC

• Just saw the RfC. I recommend we stick with Category:Mythological ships. Noah's Ark is a mythological story, and, as previously stated, that is not a statement regarding its factuality. Unfortunately, it seems a number of people have derailed the issue by discussing such irrelevant topics as the believed factuality of other mythological stories and the (un)popularity of Fundamentalist Christians. If anyone cares to question my POV, note that I am a Christian with a moderate amount of religious higher education behind me (this isn't about my credentials, though). Legendary is not the same thing, either. Sxeptomaniac 21:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone give an example of another historical ship which has been tagged with Category:Mythological ships? This example would need to be one that a large minority of people believe to be factual. If there are no other examples, then this Cat does not belong to Noah's Ark.^rossnixon 02:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Several ships that have now been classified as Category:Ghost ships were in the Mythological ships category, along with some historical ships such as the Mayflower if I am reading previous discussions correctly. I have totally cleaned up these categories so that such ambiguity about the nature of the mythological category has been rectified. Articles/Categories that are inititially created poorly should not be dismissed on that basis if tehy are subsequently cleaned up--ZayZayEM 05:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I created Category:Mythological ships with the intention of including historical ships about which a significant mythology has accumulated, such as the SS Edmund Fitzgerald, the Mayflower, the USS Constitution, the HMS Victory, the RMS Titanic, etc., as well as entirely fictional ships like the Argo, the solar barge, etc. I added a number of the historical ships to begin with, but they were summarily removed by the regular editors of those articles, and I had no intention of getting involved in a fight over it everywhere. I suppose I ought to have included the note from Category:Mythology, but I don't know that any of those editors even looked at the category before removing their articles. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Those ships are better suited to Category:Legendary ships if anything. Mythology requires a religious perspective.--ZayZayEM 02:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

According to some definitions, but that's an oversimplification. Myths are stories that express the worldview of a culture, and they're religious only to the extent that the culture is. The word means simply "story" in Greek, with no connotation of religion to it. See the definition at [1]. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see above discussions, especially wikipedia's classification of "mythological" at Category:Mythological as discussed here - Talk:Noah's_Ark#Compromise:_Mythological_.E2.86.92_Legendary. Please discuss the sue of mythological in wikipedia at that portal, and don't use this page to prove a point.--ZayZayEM 00:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether the account given in the Bible is true or not would appear to be the matter in dispute, and the essence of WP:NPOV is that Wikipedia can't have an opinion on such a matter. Historians, archeologists, etc. tend to have one opinion, certain religious scholars another. Wikipedia can only discuss the narrative as described in the text, then identify the different opinions. Different approaches use different methods to make sense of reality and attempt to ascertain what is true. WP:NPOV means that Wikipedia can't tell the reader which one to believe. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

True, unfortunately Codex has appropriated and misapplied your comments.

BTW, sorry about the edit summary refering to you as an unknown -- Codex' spelling showed nothing on Interiots's tool, but the correct spelling did (of course). •Jim62sch• 13:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Just read the RfC, and a good deal of this Talk page. Noah's Ark plainly fits within Category:Mythology per the boxed clarification above. Not sure why there should be a category specifically for mythological ships; suspect that is a red herring. It is unfortunate that "unreadable username" does not agree with the usage of the term Mythology as used academically and on Wikipedia; that is no excuse for tendentious editing. SheffieldSteel 22:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intend the category to be a red herring or to make any kind of point. The idea was to collect articles about ships, fictional or not, around which a significant body of mythology had developed. But it has been widely rejected by the editors of most articles on historical ships where this was the case, so if it gets deleted I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I assumed exactly that, TCC :-) Despite your good intentions, issues like "what is a ship?" are distracting editors from other issues (you couldn't make it up, could you?) All I really meant is that we should try to focus on what "mythology" means, and hence whether it's an appropriate term. SheffieldSteel 03:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

World religions

To clarify, as there seems to be some issue regarding whether my edit summary "makes sense"[2] "World religions" is far too inclusive, and inaccurate. Hence, Abrahamic religions. "World religions" is vague and has no delineations; Major world relgions, although also without a clearly defined boundry agreed upon by all do include by all accounts Hindu and Buddhist, neither of which have the Ark as part of their mythology and/or beliefs. Abrahamic is accurate. World religions is not. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Some highly POV editor added an edit that seems to indicate that all members of Christianity, Orthodox judaism, etc. believe the ark is part of "human history" and the article is being "followed by WP:RELIGION." I don't care who tracks it, the edit was highly POV and plainly wrong. Orangemarlin 13:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the personal attack. Some kind of statement is absolutely needed somewhere in the article to indicate that there exists another POV beside the view that the Ark was fictional. I don't care how it is worded as long as it is accurate. Don't fool yourself: The Quran states that the ark existed and Muslims to this day refer to Noah (Nuh) as a Prophet and always write (PBUH) after his name out of deepest respect. This is a significant viewpoint. The Bible states that the ark existed and many Christian denominations do follow the Bible, though perhaps not all. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is only one organization that follows the Bible and declares the Ark to be real, they have so much respect for Noah that they declare him to be the angel Gabriel, unlike any other groups. All of this information is being suppressed, and you are saying I have the POV??? This dispute is going to become much worse if you refuse to even acknowledge the fact that there are huge religious organizations that do not subscribe to your personal opinions about the historicity of the Ark, and if for your own POV-pushing purposes, you will not allow the Noah's Ark article to reflect the reality of what people actually believe, instead of attempting to dictate to them what you think they "should" believe about the Ark. Til Eulenspiegel 13:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I see no personal attack. Maybe you do not understand English very well and do not know what a personal attack is. If you need a good example, I would be glad to oblige you but in the interests of civility and comity, this sort of behavior is discouraged on WP. Some small minority of Christian sects subscribe to biblical inerrancy. Most do not. Only a few of those who believe in biblical inerrancy insist that the Ark story documents some historical event, accurate in all particulars. Many believe that the story is allegorical, or should not even be included in the canon. You are free to believe whatever you like. And if this belief is held by some segment of the Abrahamic faith community, this should be noted in the article. However, this is an encyclopedia, and the truth or falsehood of something is not determined by majority vote or a popularity contest. If an obscure minority extremist religion like the "Mormons" venerates the Ark story and declares it to be "true", this proves nothing, and some might take it as a very serious strike against its veracity, given the Mormon track record on many other issues. An encyclopedia is about what is true and what is verifiable. It is verifiable that some Abrahamic sects subscribe to the belief that the Ark was real. It is also verifiable that many Abrahamic sects do not subscribe to this belief. I suspect that since the Ark story relies on biblical inerrancy beliefs, and since biblical inerrancy is a minority viewpoint, that most Christians and Muslims probably do not believe that the Ark was literally true as described in the Koran or in Genesis. This can be described, depending on our sources. However, it has been well known for centuries that the Ark story is completely at odds with reality and all the evidence that exists. So therefore, it is part of mythology. It is a fable. A made up story. Like the Easter Bunny. Like Santa Claus. Like the Tooth Fairy. As Galileo said, "I refuse to believe that the God who gave humans reason did not intend for us to use it." You are free to reject reason if you want, but it is a bit much to insist that everyone else reject reason as well to make you feel better. Sorry. --Filll 19:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no personal attack. I did not mention your name, first of all, second of all, I attacked the edit, which was incorrect, and highly POV. And no, there are not "huge" religious organizations that believe in the ark story as a "part of human history." Only some parts of Orthodox Judaism do. The Roman Catholic Church does not ascribe to an inerrant POV on the Bible. In fact, I would posit that Noah's Ark is considered factual by a small minority of religions. Moreover, your invicility is unacceptable, especially since no one here is attempting to dictate what anyone believes, we are merely making certain that the a fair and balanced presentation is made. Orangemarlin 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of "positing" this and that without a source, I would advise you to stick with the verifiable facts. There is not a religious dichotomy in the world between Orthodox Judaism and Roman Catholicism; other religions do exist as well. Til Eulenspiegel 15:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It is too bad that you are incomprehensible. Oh well. I guess I did not expect much else.--Filll 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I can post whatever I want on the discussion section. Second, it is not my job to "prove" the negative. You edited the article to state that Orthodox Judaism and every single Christian in the world believes in the ark as part of human history. Verify it, and I'll shut my freaking mouth about it. Otherwise, I'll say whatever I want, whenever I want in this discussion section. If you choose to not believe it that's fine, but when it comes to the article, I only write what I can verify. Right now, as opposed to creating arguments where there are none, I have work to do, not tracking down verification or lack thereof for your edits. By the way, I note your current edits to the article are NPOV and accurate. So, why are we having this discussion anyways? Orangemarlin 17:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

None of my edits were ever intended to imply that every single Orthodox Jew and professed Christian believes the Ark story is historical. But on the other hand, all references to the Muslims, Bahai, Mormons, and other Christian churches (that continually speak of the Ark as history to this day in their writings) do not need to be hidden and suppressed. Do you need references to the numerous contemporary Muslim and Bahai writings that explicitly state that the Quranic account of Noah and the Ark are factual? They are numerous and not hard to find. In contrast, I challenge you to find even one single Muslim or Bahai author anywhere who states his belief that the Quranic account of Noah's ark is not factual. You can "posit" what they believe all you want, but that is useless to the project. It would be better not to "posit" beliefs onto them for which there is no source anywhere but yourself. Til Eulenspiegel 17:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the Koran is that it includes a statement that large parts of the Koran are allegorical, including statements about heaven and hell [3]. I also understand that the entire story of Noah and the Ark appearing in "Yunus" in the Koran is allegorical. Oops...[4]. I have found copious references to this in the literature. I guess you do not know very much about Islam, otherwise you would know this, wouldnt you?--Filll 20:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That first website states the opinion that Heaven and Hell are allegorical, that is a far cry from stating that the Prophet Nuh is allegorical. As for your second website, it appears to be a non-Muslim, non-religious (secular) analysis of the Quran that states the prophet Nuh is an "allegory", and presumably has zero authority to speak for any Muslim's beliefs. 20:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have found dozens of references to the allegorical nature of much of the Koran. I will decline to write some sort of huge treatise on the matter here. I am not going to do your homework for you. I have seen enough to convince me that just as in Christianity, large swaths of Islam believe in the allegorical nature of much of the sacred texts. Which makes them seem far more reasonable and rational than they are usually presented in the media or by religious extremists of various stripes. --Filll 20:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is supressing references to those Abrahamic sects that believe the Ark was real? No one. It should be made clear that some do, and it is made clear. There is no contest here about that. However, it is also clear that the evidence for the Ark is exceedingly weak. This has been known since at least the encyclopedia entry of Denis Diderot some centuries ago in which the complete impossibility of the story was documented in great detail. And the weakness of the evidence should also be included. Which is only fair. It would be the height of irresponsibility to do otherwise.--Filll 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you were not paying attention, but every single reference in the article that stated those "Abrahamic" religions that explicitly consider the Ark to be historical was repeatedly removed within the past 24 hrs. Perhaps this will not continue to happen, since you apparently just conceded now that we should indeed make mention of the ones that do. Til Eulenspiegel 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If it states in the article that no Abrahamic sect believes that Noah's Ark was a real historical vessel as described in Genesis and the Koran, then this is incorrect and should be corrected. However, I doubt if it says anything like that. However, if it does, rest assured that I, and OrangeMarlin as well I am sure, as well as many others would be among the first to correct such a blatant inaccuracy.--Filll 20:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, on a discussion page, I could posit anything I want, up to and including the fact that this is a whole big myth, which it is. And I really don't concern myself with Bahai or Muslim beliefs, because I have never studied nor have been interested in their beliefs. I am a scientist, and frankly, if it isn't testable by science, it's a myth. Orangemarlin 17:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If by science you [OM] mean evolution, you are just as much a believer in a myth as everyone else you condemn. Science does not mean evolution. Evolutionism (and it is an "ism) is a corrolary to the myth of Naturalism. Science does not even enter into the picture. Science is just a methodology, not a philosophy of life and cannot even be a philosophy of life. Indeed, it is impossible to even do science without first accepting some philosophcal paradigm. I suspect that you are scratching your head at this point, because you haven't a clue what I'm talking about. That is typical among evolutionists. They know next to nothing about the foundations of science. And they blindly believe their teachers and "high priests" such as Gould, Sagan, Dawkins, etc. or such bastions of "truth" as Talk.Origins [ROFL!!!]. And just for the record, I'm studying Paleontology at a University in the USA, so I know what science is about. Allenroyboy 20:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about evolution? You seem to be itching for a fight. If you want to fight about evolution, maybe you should go to another website. This sort of thing is not appropriate here, especially on a page about Noah's Ark. I will note that there is some remote connection between evolution and the Noah's Ark story. And that is great that you can spew philosophical nonsense to muddy the waters, but I will decline to take the bait. If philosophy was so valuable for scientific study, then it might actually be a required course at major schools for those majoring in science. However, this is not the case. For obvious reasons. Philosophy is widely derided by scientists and even mocked for its pointless tail-chasing. But you are free to cavort around spewing it and feel as superior as you like. Especially since you are studying "at a University in the USA" so you know what science is about. Wow I can really tell.--Filll 20:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You [OM]are entitled to your own opinion, if your POV is that all the field of Religion should henceforth be abolished and considered a subset of the field of mythology. But, you are not entitled to go across a multitude of articles about religion and theology, the Quran and the Bible, etc. and write that you have now declared them to be "mythology" just because they are articles about a living "religion" -- because that is the very meaning of pushing a POV, and making a tragic error by imposing your personal point of view that anyone who is offended by this behaviour "doesn't count" and should be silenced. Those are the tactics that are generally found disgusting. Get used to it, people in this world are usually going to speak up for what they believe in, rather than remain silent, and are not going to let the likes of you tell them this false "No Christians or Churches believe the Bible any more, and besides, the ones that do believe the Bible, don't count for anything" psy-op spiel. Lies do not really become the truth. If you could do this without anyone noticing or objecting, it would be one thing. But there is perhaps some wisdom to the saying, "Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird" (Prov. 1:17). Til Eulenspiegel 18:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are offended by the fact that not everyone subscribes to your narrow religious viewpoint, then I am sorry for you. This of course is how religious wars start. It has been like this for thousands of years, and gallons and gallons of blood have been spilt by people with your kind of viewpoint. Wow isnt religion wonderful and uplifting? --Filll 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly an ad hominem Personal attack against my person, as well as a slanderous lie, and will be reported as such an incident. Spitting on me does not make me go away. Maybe some would, but not me. Til Eulenspiegel 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Slanderous lie? How do you think religious wars start then, if not by doctrinaire insistence that no one is allowed to believe differently than oneself? Go on tell me where religious wars come from. And how did I slander you? And what is the ad hominem personal attack? And how on earth were you spat on? Please tell me. I am sure we all want to know.--Filll 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And don't forget the evolutionary religion of Stalin who killed more than any other religion Allenroyboy 20:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice nonsequitur. Nothing like a little irrationality in the afternoon.--20:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

religion is religion, look it up...[it doesn't just mean belief in a God. Dictionary.com--"something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience." or Am. Heritage Dict.--"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."] Stalin's zeal is evident by the millions dead. Go Communism!!!! Go Evolutionism!!! Allenroyboy 20:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please go someplace else to vandalize and inflict your graffiti and half-formed regurgitated half-truths on the naive. I have heard it all before, and I do not need to hear it again. All you will do by this exercise is convince me more of your capabilities.--Filll 21:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Burning of Latimer and Ridley, from John Foxe's book (1563)

Filll, above you ask about how do you think religious wars start. Remember, it is not just religious wars but sect rivalries that led to the Three Blind Mice. And of course this sectarian violence continues to this day in N.Ireland and Scotland. David D. (Talk) 21:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Did I not already say the same thing? Maybe you were not paying attention or maybe I was not clear enough. Oh well.--Filll 23:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you are ASSUMING that I have any religion, and that you know what it is. Secondly, maybe you are hearing little voices in your head telling you that "noone is allowed to believe different;y", but you aren't hearing any such thing fom me. Til Eulenspiegel 20:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem well acquainted with "little voices in the head". Hmm...And I guess that assuming you subscribe to a religion is some sort of terrible slander against you, equivalent to spitting on you. In such case, it is best that I leave you alone in your reveries and fantasies.--Filll 20:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone notice how these POV pushers jump at first chance to drop some sort of reporting incident. LOL. How pathetic, especially when Filll made no attack on you whatsoever. Eulenspiegel, you are quite amusing--oops, is than an attack? Oh no. Orangemarlin 20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fill, I've enjoyed my morning engaging in this discussion with Playful Owl. He assumes I want to "abolish religion", yet if I push back on his POV, he gets all irrational. Oh well. It's amusing that their faith is so weak that any challenge to their view of the universe, obviously means their faith has no meaning. Well, obviously their faith was weak to begin with. Orangemarlin 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason your statements are being reported is because Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids you from making these attacks on another's beliefs. I try to respect everybody's belief, even if it is different from mine, and everyone's right to choose for himself what to believe. This is a private decision, and I have not elected to share my decision on what to believe with you. However it is a pity that you do not respect beliefs that are different from your own. What we need is MORE respect for different beliefs, not less. The recent edits seem to be driven by a sort of Machievellian sense of neutrality, that says since "Christians cannot tell us what to believe", therefore we have to go to the opposite extreme to compensate, and state that we should tell them their beliefs are fictional. I'm not sure "Machievellian neutrality" is the kind of neutrality we want here on Wikipedia. We should avoid either extreme here, it isn't so hard to do. Til Eulenspiegel 21:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Til, no one has attacked anyone's beliefs. Believers of all kinds and types are welcome here; however, we must strive to attain a neutral point of view. Editors who "push" or promote a particular view are not helping achieve that, and are referred to as "POV pushers" or similar handles. Read Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy for a good essay on how to improve your ability to work towards NPOV. Remember, if a view is held to be too small to warrent inclusion in an article, it is not an attack on that view. For example, Mormons are a tiny fraction of people for whom the Noah's Ark story holds significance; this does not disparage them in any way but it does affect whether their particular view in this article is a brief mention, a full section, or not included at all. This is in keeping with WP:NPOV#Undue weight. My personal beliefs are irrelevant, as are yours - not in the larger context of our lives, of course, but in editing Wikipedia. I may believe whatever I choose - but I may not attempt to promote that belief here on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have any questions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Specific religions

Recently Til has stated his view, here as well as elsewhere[5] that omitting specific reference to the LDS and Baha'i religions constitutes supression or censorship. I offer these figures for consideration by editors wishing to ensure we do not violate either NPOV or its sub-clause of Undue weight:

Number of adherents (figures from adherents.com, with the exception of LDS which I could not find a total figure for there)

• Christianity: 2,100,000,000
• Islam: 1,300,000,000
• Judaism: 14,000,000
• TOTAL of above three religions: 3,414,000,000

Specifics on LDS and Baha'i

• LDS: 10,000,000[6]
• Baha'i: 7,000,000

LDS is a sub-category of Christianity. All of the religions listed are Abrahamic. Please offer comments as appropriate. Also, please note that Til has combined his concerns for accuracy with an unwarranted and completely unacceptable personal attack, accusing editors who disagree with his desire to include a specific paragraph about the LDS of "hostility to all forms of faith." Til, I remind you again, please comment on the content, not the contributor. If you feel an edit is inappropriate, address the edit, not the editor. Consider this a NPA warning. I also note that others here have been, if not so blatant, at least not limiting their comments to content. Keep to the subject, people. If Til or anyone else believes in the absolute veracity of Noah's Ark, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or indeed anything else, that is not germane to whether his desired edits are appropriate for this article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I did respond to this, but my lengthy response was removed from this page, to my own talkpage (qv) by User:KillerChihuahua. See: User talk:Til Eulenspiegel 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I do not care if Til or Roy or anyone else subscribes to any particular belief or none at all. But using the argument that the Mormons claim that Noah is the same as the angel Gabriel does not mean that all Christians and Muslims believe that Noah's Ark was an actual sea going vessel and that the Koranic and Biblical accounts of the Flood are literal descriptions of actual events, true in every detail (for one thing, they disagree with each other). There are similar chains of reasoning and illogic all the way through the arguments above. If we allowed this sort of material into the article, it would rapidly devolve into a religious tract written from a very narrow religious point of view, and be replete with inaccuracies, drastically reducing the value of the article.--Filll 23:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am glad if your specialty is science, but I daresay it isn't logic. That is what's called a complete "strawman" fallacy because nobody has even dreamed of making the argument here that Mormon beliefs in Gabriel as Noah building the Ark have any import at all for what other Christians and Muslims believe. For the question of what Muslims and other Christians and Christian Churches believe about the Ark, their own writings amply speak for themselves and we should not put any words into their mouths. Til Eulenspiegel 23:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Except for one thing. We are writing an encyclopedia here. Remember?--Filll 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel it is unencyclopedic to mention that groups today believe in Noah, and to explain what it is they believe? Remember, nobody is telling the reader what religion to follow, we simply want to explain what beliefs are actually out there, just like all other encyclopedia articles do. Til Eulenspiegel 23:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. If you want to compile an extensive list of which sects believe what with regards to the Flood and Noah's Ark, I would strongly encourage you to do so. I would even be glad to help. I am not sure there is room for it in the present article, but you could write a daughter article to this one on that topic and I am sure it would be welcomed by all and sundry. The best way to do this is to start it in a sandbox (maybe KillerChihuahua can show you; if not I can hook you up if you need help). Then when you have enough material, get a few friends to comment on the format, and when it seems ok, then launch it as a separate article. It will be a lot of work, but I think it would make an interesting article, in my opinion.--Filll 23:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds encouraging... In fact, we pretty much have that already right now, and the article does not look like a "religious tract", does it?... the only conspicuous absence, among all the sundry scriptures that do specifically mention the Ark, is the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Moses... Til Eulenspiegel 23:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The present article does not really describe all the variants that exist. For example, one might want to investigate

• Catholic beliefs, currently and in the past (Roman Catholic and other catholic churches)
• various orthodox Christian beliefs
• Some of the Protestant variants, such as Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, Baptist, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventist, Christian Scientist, Jehovah's Witness, Assorted Anabaptists, Millerites, Mormon, Anglican, Lutheran, and so on, and how these beliefs have evolved with time
• The main Jewish varieties, such as Orthodox, Chabad, Reform, Conservative, Haredi, Hasidic, Modern Orthodox, Karaite, Reconstructionist, etc and their beliefs in Noah's Ark
• Similarly the main Islamic sects, such as Sunni, Shiite and Sufi, and maybe some of the other prominent varieties such as Alewite etc.
• Some syncretic religious varieties such as Ba'hai and Druze and their Noachide beliefs
• Other religions with flood traditions

Even this tiny subset of the literally thousands of possibilities would make for a very complicated article, but it would be very interesting nonetheless.--Filll 00:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To which I would add:

• arguments debunking the flood story
• arguments rationalizing the flood story
• history of what book writers have been writing about the flood story for thousands of years
• Noah's Ark art

none of which belong in the main article but do belong in separate daughter articles. Greensburger 00:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Greensburger, this article's NPOV is just to state what it is, a Biblical story or myth, there is no value judgement on whether it existed or not (considering the total lack of proof). Articles such as Flood geology a POV fork from here, clearly state it's junk science. The search for a Noah's ark would be the same. Orangemarlin 00:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Since many books have been written expressing theories about Noah's Ark that expand on and often conflict with the Genesis version, these POV's can be expressed in daughter articles that are not advocates of their POVs. Rather the articles would summarize what others have written, in a neutral encyclopedic style. Greensburger 00:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) I know nothing about Mormon beliefs about Noah's ark, and it is news to me that they include a belief that Noah was the Angel Gabriel, but if this belief can be reliably sourced I believe it should be included, although we'll need to discuss how to separate the basic narrative of Noah's Ark from various other religious beliefs and traditions about it. It might be appropriate to have a subsection or subarticle about religious traditions about the identity of Noah, for example. However, I am inclined to take the view that given our neutral point of view policy and the fact that Wikipedia is not paper, there's simply no basis in policy for excluding LDS beliefs about Noah's ark based on some sort of editorial judgment on Wikipedia's part that LDS is an unimportant religion. I don't think it's Wikipedia's business to make such judgments. If there are a variety of religious traditions about Noah, I believe it's perfectly possible to make a network of subarticles to include these traditions in the encyclopedia in a way that doesn't sacrifice the readibility of the main article. These problems strike me as managable. However, I believe that policy supports including content on specific religions' beliefs and tradions regarding Noah's Ark -- once again, if reliably sourced -- and we need to come up with a way to make this work. Putting this material in subarticles (with a mention that religious traditions about Noah's Ark are found in Article X) would be appropriate. It's worth pointing out some specific examples of bad arguments for deciding notability and whether to include material such as WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:GHITS, we shouldn't decide whether to include material solely based on how many subscribers a publication has or how many ghits it gets. Judging the notability and importance of religions solely by their number of adherents strikes me as a similarly inappropriate practice. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason not to include or mention arguments about the historicity of the flood narrative. I also agree that if the question is only whether material should be put in daughter articles whose contents are summarized briefly in the main article, there's no basis for complaint if not everything goes in the main article. Putting things in daughter articles (or not) is a matter of convenience and readability, not a question of basic includability. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I have no problem with LDS beliefs being documented on WP. However, If you document LDS beliefs, you better include a full range of other beliefs about Noah and the Ark by various sects as a function of time and place, as well as the beliefs of various organizations. And there really is not room in the present article for so much. It needs one or more daughter articles.--Filll 18:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the intent of ANYONE here is to create an anti-mormon article. I'm guessing that's easy to find on Wikipedia. But the fact is that of the 6 billion or so people on the planet, Mormons are notable for less 0.2% of the world. It is only notable to one state in the US (that being Utah) and maybe because of Mitt Romney, but not to discuss its view on Noah's Ark. Yes, I understand all the Wiki-rules about number, but to have an article discussing every single Christian sect's attitude about Noah's Ark would go on forever and a day. By the way, the LDS religion has no opinion on Noah's Ark, and, in fact, does not believe that science and faith should be in conflict. This has always been thought of as a tacit agreement that the LDS leadership does not oppose thoughts like Evolution and such. In fact, BYU's paleontology department is one of the premier ones in the US. Given the lack of conflict between science and faith for members of the LDS hierarchy, I doubt they would subscribe to a global flood, and, therefore, Noah's Ark becomes a nice story (as it should be). I believe my evolution class in college was taught by a member of the LDS hierarchy. Orangemarlin 18:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant. So now we have wikipedians using their own intuitions to lay down what official LDS doctrine is. Til Eulenspiegel 19:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your rudeness is incredible. How about reading WP:CIVIL, and then after reading that, spend some time with this, from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

• The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded,

• Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church ... .

• Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].

Just so you know I do not use my intuition. Orangemarlin 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that, er, really proved your point... I certainly will try to follow your notable example of Civility, you are truly a master at it and teach a valuable lesson to be studied with your every post. Til Eulenspiegel 19:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Till Eulenspiegel, what are you on about? Such an as Jolly Joker. •Jim62sch• 19:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What is going on around here? This guy needs to chill out. Orangemarlin 19:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Once he climbs down off the Tau-shaped gopher wood, perhaps. •Jim62sch• 19:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Hi! What are the sources for the specific LDS beliefs involved (that the Angel Gabriel was Noah etc.?) Coming from a religion with lots of particulars and in which generalities tend to have exceptions, I tend to agree that inferring particulars about religious matters based on general statements may create a risk of WP:OR, and perhaps this may be a concern here. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh???? •Jim62sch• 19:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What is relevant is whether the LDS stance is –significant-. If it mostly constitutes “me too”, then it is completely irrelevant. Is this significant enough to be worth mentioning in this article? I think the answer is pretty clearly no. Wikipedia is supposed to record notable information, and I don’t think it is necessarily notable. Remember the principle of undue weight. There are many, many sects larger than the LDS. Titanium Dragon 23:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the real issue is that this is the wrong article for that information; if the LDS think Noah is secretly the angel Daniel, and it is actually significant enough to be worth mentioning, it belongs in the Noah article, NOT this one. Titanium Dragon 23:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In the most recent edit reverted, the only difference in belief was a belief that Noah was the angel Gabriel. Is this is the only issue of concern? If so I'd agree the Noah article would be a better fit. If there are other elements to the LDS POV, would it be possible to provide proposed language on this talk page? Thanks. --Shirahadasha 02:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to restate my position: I have no objection to including material on LDS beliefs abt the Ark, provided they're distinctive. I also have some qualms about devoting too much space to LDS beliefs, as the LDS are definitely a small denomination (10 million really is pretty small, within a total Christian demographic of over a billion). PiCo 07:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning of Johan's Ark

Should there be a mentioning of Johan's Ark in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Can-o-Mark (talk • contribs) 05:18, May 2, 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not notable, and it's highly POV. Please learn to sign your name. Orangemarlin 14:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How is it POV? Can-o-Mark 9:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a reference for tourist traps. That page should certainly link here, but I don't think it is particularly relevant to this topic. Titanium Dragon 09:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I'm pretty sure it's not POV to somehow cite Johan's Ark in an article on the object it's based upon. As for notability, well, a 70 m scale model of the aforementioned mythological ship seems fairly notable to me (it has its own article too). Were it a 1 m model made of matchsticks on display in a creationist museum, I'd certainly question its notability. Anyway, its construction may be completely misguided, and it may operate as a source of deliberate misinformation in the Netherlands, but it's still a bit of a publicity coup. Adding a (single) cite to it in, for instance, the "See also" section does not seem unreasonable to me. --Plumbago 12:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's really a besides-the-point type reference. Whee-hee, someone made a scale model. Big whoop. •Jim62sch• 21:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I cant see how a 70 meter long replica of the Ark of Noah could be of any interest to people looking for information about the Ark of Noah. Can-o-Mark 0:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm does not come off well in writing. -- Ec5618 00:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. As should the new Almighty... movie that has Noah references--ZayZayEM 01:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh

See [7]for an interesting screed. @@ •Jim62sch• 19:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. If I say anything, the editor might go "bat feces" again. Orangemarlin 17:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, bat guano is a good fertilizer. •Jim62sch• 21:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

Although the edit war may have calmed down in recent days, I have protected the article in the hopes this can be solved once and for all, thereby preventing a further deluge of reverts. The May 10 date is not rigid; if everything looks settled before then, the article can, of course, be unprotected. Just post to WP:RFPP and someone will get around to it. -- tariqabjotu 01:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You realise of course that your reasoning doesn't support your action. The time to protect is not when the "edit war" has calmed down. •Jim62sch• 21:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

hehe. "deluge" ... Mateo LeFou 16:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know there was an edit war. Apparently, my standard is set by real edit wars like at Intelligent design. Orangemarlin 17:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, real wars dagnabbit! •Jim62sch• 21:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What Year did Noahs Ark happen?

I ask because I am sure that Some thing else was happening in this world at the same time.

The Global Flood happened somewhere between 2300 and 2500 BC. Yes, something else was happening - vegetation was being compressed into future coal and oil deposits. ^rossnixon 02:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The section "Biblical literalism and the Ark" gives a brief overview of the subject. As for what else might have been happening at a moment when the entire world was under 20 feet and more of water, one can only speculate - but I imagine it involved a lot of holding of breath. PiCo 03:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It didn't. The historical event on which it was based happened about 2900 BC, when there was a catastrophic river flood at Shuruppak, Sumer. See Ziusudra. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That would have been a different flood. You don't need an ark to save humans and animals from local floods - you just move to higher ground. ^rossnixon 01:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that so? We can tell that a local river flood happened c. 2900 BC, but apparently not a worldwide flood c. 2400 BC! Imagine that!

The details of what happened are unknown since by the time we have any documentary evidence a few hundred years later, a considerable amount of legendary material had already accumulated around the historical event. My own experience with sudden floods convinces me that one does not necessarily have time to get to higher ground; a nearby barge may have been the only choice. Regardless, the flood at Shuruppak and the almost immediate rise of Kish afterward, both of which are archaeologically attested, correlate with the sequence presented in the myth and the traditional Sumerian King List. Every other flood myth recorded in the Fertile Crescent is for all intents and purposes identical to the story of Ziusudra as we first see it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't resist adding this link PiCo 05:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The time the flood supposedly occured ancient Egypt was doing quite well and there was a lot of activity in Mesopotamia, as well as in China. It "should have" happened during recorded history, but is conspiciously absent from all written records from the time period. Titanium Dragon 04:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Mythical ships...again

If a ship has been seen by many eye witnesses, it clearly is not mythical. On June 2nd, 1840 a terrific earthquake shook the highest mountain of the Armenian plains, located north of Lake Van in Turkey. The name of the shattered mountain was Aghri Dagh, better known as Mount Ararat. The earthquake wiped out ther town of Ahora and the monastery of St. Jacob. Since the earthquake, a number of sightings of an ark like structure of hand tooled timber have been made on treeless Mt. Ararat. Here is a brief summary of several eye witnesses accounts of the Ark. This material is from Willmington's Guide to the Bible, p 31. "A summary of the eye witness reports since 1840 proves facinating reading indeed. Their tesimonies bear striking similarities. a. the ship is half buried in a partly melted lake. b. The altitude is around 13,000 feet. c. The inside of the ark is filled with wooden separators (like bars inside a cage). d. The outside and inside are covered with a heavy varnish or lacquer. e. the wood is extremely hard, almost petrified. f. the main door is missing." Mr. Willmington continues citing more than 12 people and the dates of their ark sightings. The first few names and sighting dates are as follows: (1) Haji Yearman (date of sighting 1865) He was an Armenian who lived at the base of Mt. Ararat. He died in Oakland Ca in 1916. (2) John Joseph The Archbishop of Babylon and head of the Christian Nestorian Church, Joseph reported his experience at the World's Fair in Chicago in 1893. (3) W. Roskovitsky A Russian airman. The sighting was in 1915 during WW I. Later in 1917, a Russian expedition numbering 150 men saw it. (4) Carveth Wells A popular radio commentator over KFI in Los Angeles reported seeing wood from the ark while at the site in 1933. (5) The ark was also sighted by various airmen both Russian and American during WW II. Mount Ararat was on a direct flight between the allied base in Tunisia and the Russian base at Brivan. One of the Russians claiming to have seen it was Major Jasper Maskelyn, wartime chief of Camouflage (1941 - 1945). Sighting number (6) was by Resit, a Kurdish farmer, his experience was published in an Istanbul newspaper on November 13, 1948. On to sighting (7) by Dr. Donald M Liedman Dr. Liedman is a Jewish scientist and medical doctor. He has given sworn testimony that he was shown actual snapshots of the Ark on two occasions while in Hamburg, Germany, by a Russian air force major who had personally taken the pictures during WW II. (8) George Jefferson Greene, Greene was on a helicopter research mission for his company in 1953. While flying over Mt Ararat he spotted a strange object and took pictures from ninety feet. When developed they showed a large wooden object. These pictures were seen by many. (9) Bernard Navarra, this French explorer visited Mt Ararat and later wrote a book on the subject entitled "Noah's Ark, I Touched It" Navarra cut some wood from an object on Mt Ararat and subjected it to C-14 testings at two universities. The Univeristy of Bordeaux issued an official statement that "the fossilized wood was derived from an epoch of great antiquity." The Forest Institute of Madrid results were "Our analysis estimated the age of the fragment at 5000 years." Ark sightings have been clearly documented, analyzed, and reported else where. They have not however been widely made known. The Ark is not a myth. It is not the case that scientists stopped trying to justify the literal existence of the Ark. It was many eye witness reports that stopped the need for saying it was a myth. Jbdm 17:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I move Jbdm's comments here, because it was lost back there. Couple of things. First, this conversation was resolved a month ago. Second, until you can give us peer-reviewed references, not second-hand, and really old, descriptions, none of us are going to be convinced. By the way, I could find a piece of wood that is easily carbon dated to 5000 years ago. Furthermore, I can give you radiometric dated stuff from 200 million years ago, which kind of defeats the whole Noah's Ark story anyways. Orangemarlin 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jbdm, while it makes for interesting reading that many have seen the Ark, and that people have brought back potions of it for carbon dating, it still begs the question, and does not provide scientific proof of its presence on the mountain. Orangemarlin is correct and is not alone in this understanding. The scientific standards, and the pitfalls that are easy to fall into, are clearly demonstrated in the opening paragraphs of Project Vonbora (www. vonbora.net)

While those who are inclined to believe in the Ark may be convinced by eye witness accounts and may accept that alleged wood came from the Ark, there is a stringent scientific process of validation that is necessary. There are many scientists who are working on the subject who understand the necessary methods and are employing them.

If someone claims to have found old wood, there is no doubt that it can be tested and shown to indeed be old wood, but unless it is independently verified en site, and properly cataloged and removed for testing, then there is no valid correlation, because the “sample” cannot be verified to be from the object claimed.

Orangemarlin understands this well (better than most who believe the Ark is there). He often repeats the stringent necessities of science, and well he should. He also has personal knowledge of the involvement of some scientists who are approaching it correctly, though he of course does not think they will find anything.Katherin 04:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And just to clarify, when Orangemarlin says "us", he is speaking on behalf of himself and the other select editors who have been granted executive authority over this article -- which ain't you, so, seeya... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.253.143.177 (talk • contribs).

To to the cowardly anonymous editor, oh well, whatever.. Back to Katherin. Thanks, and yes, you are right. Hey, I'm not so closed minded that I wouldn't read up on something that was verified. I still have stated that their might have been a big ship that dealt with some 5th Century BCE localized flood. But unless someone carried it up to a mountainside, it didn't float more than 10-20 meters above sea level for a couple of days. Orangemarlin 05:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if the world's leading professional archaeological society verified the existence of the remains (or intact) of a sea-worthy vessel capable of transporting large quantities of paired animals of various size for a long period o0f time (and had evidence of having done so) and dated it to a time period roughly equivalent with biblical estimates - this page would still rightly belong in Mythological Ships category, as it is a ship contained in a very powerful and developed mythological narrative with elements of religious and supernatural nature that cannot be simply confirmed by just saying "well the ship existed, Ha!". Think of this way, if I told you a story that I bought a hot dog, it talked to me and then I ate it: I could show you there was definitely a hot dog, I have a receipt and a wrapper; I definitely ate, let's analyse my "byproduct"; but I still can't definitively show that it actually talked to me and said the world was going to end tomorrow so you should sell me your car.--ZayZayEM 01:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

ZZ, I appreciate your two examples and the contrasts and similarities you provided. It makes for a great object lesson. You neglected some important details that would make your proposed scenarios scientifically valid. As to the “leading professional archaeological society” verifying the existence of a sea-worthy vessel, you must include the detail of “location, and dimension” as described in the ancient literary source, otherwise their comments are useless and without scientific basis. If the location and dimensions of a sea-worthy vessel happen to be the same as described in the ancient source, then in order to deny that it is the ark as described (and had arrived there as described) scientists would have to explain by what engineering and logistic marvel such a construction site was suitable for such a structure (especially if it were on top of a mountain inside a glacier). And if so, why would such a colossal effort be expended in order to build a useless structure? And as to your hot dog that talked. There is no historical record of facts proposing that there is something that can be scientifically observed today regarding the “talking” of your hot dog, and since you already ate it there is no possibility of observing it speaking again (and even if it did speak today it would not prove that it had talked before).

Both your scenarios are useless from a scientific perspective. You prevented your “professional archaeological scientists” from being scientific (since you neglected to include the testable and necessary observable facts of “location and dimensions” according to a historical record); and you proposed a scenario that cannot be scientifically tested when you proposed that your “hot dog” talked. But your most obvious leap of faith you asked us to take was when you expected us to draw the conclusion that a silenced voice or yore has any scientific commonality with a structure of specified location and dimension that can be observed today.Katherin 06:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My main point was that even if a leading body confirmed a discovery of a vessel/part of a vessel resembling the ark from an expected time period in an expected location, the ship would still have a mythological aspect. It would not be proven that it had done what it had been said to have done (carried all the animals for x days), by who it was said to have been done (Noah son of Lamech, especially considering competing historical record of ark builders), and for what purpose (God said to because he flooded the entire world). Existence of one small part, or evidence of one small part of a myth does not prove a myth, especially when that evidence is simultaneously evidence for competing myths/interpretations--ZayZayEM 08:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If a structure of the described location and dimensions is proved to exist according to the description in the ancient record of Moses I (and by the way none of the competing records to Moses I have the specificity necessary to scientifically locate or identify) then scientist are free to propose 1) a reason for the structure’s existence on top of a mountain underneath a glacier, 2) a description of how it came to be at that location, and 3) a purpose for which the structure was built---all necessary elements of a valid hypothesis if such a structure was verified. And then they could set out to prove it. Otherwise their prejudices would make them out to be more akin to a religious cult belief group than scientist.Katherin 17:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But it would still be mythical, it's part of a very well developed mythology. This is where it is important to understand the usage of "mythology" in context. Moreso than Noah's Ark, the existence of the Ark of the Covenant is rather historically sound - whether it pertained to the exact Mythos contained within sacred texts or certain films is an entirely different matter, and as such it is a mythological entity.--ZayZayEM 01:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It would still be mythical. I see. A mythical-scientifically verified discovery? That sounds like an oxymoron. LOL.

Now ZZ, you should read your argument closer. Do you argue that such a scientifically verified discovery would still be “mythical” because it fits the description of an “ancient myth”? or is it that the scientists that verify such a discovery could not possibly come up with a more credible or plausible explanation than the text that led to its discovery? and would thus resort to citing “mythology” to explain it?Katherin 05:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I opened up a thread Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Scientific v. Religious POVs: What exactly do we mean by pseudoscience using some of the difficulties we've been having on this page as an example. Perhaps some of the editors here might wish to comment. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! There had been a proposal and discussion in Category talk:Mythological ships to delete the category. I've transferred that discussion to the proper forum for these things, WP:CfD, as a procedural matter. Please see the notice at the top of this page for the link to reach that discussion. Please join it. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

St Hippolytus of Rome (recent addition to the article)

An editor has just added this paragraph to the section on the ark in Chritian tradition:

St. Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) recounted a number of early traditions specific to the Ark. He stated that it was built in three storeys: the lowest for wild beasts, the middle for birds and domestic animals, and the top level for humans; he adds that the male animals were separated from the females by sharp stakes, to help maintain the prohibition against cohabitation aboard the vessel. According to him, a door was built on the east side, the bones of Adam were brought aboard with gold, frankincense and myrrh, and the Ark floated to and fro in the four directions on the waters, making the sign of the cross, and eventually landing on Mount Kardu "in the east, in the land of the sons of Raban, and the Orientals call it Mount Godash; the Arabians and Persians call it Ararat"[8].

I have no inherent objection to it, but I do wonder whether it actually adds anything to the article - the fact is that there's probably no end to what could be said of the Ark in early and medieval Christian traditions, and we have to limit, somehow, what goes into the article. I'd like to hear what others think about this addition. (Also, the reference isn't quite complete - references should enable readers to look up the source, but this one doesn't - I suggest the editor give a reference to the secondary source where he found this quote, rather than to Hipploytus's primary materials, which I suspect might be a little difficult for the common reader to get hold of). PiCo 05:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, there are very similar traditions, recorded by much later authors than Hippolytus, in both the Judaism and Islam sections. Your reaction above (which was not unexpected), questioning whether the inclusion of the early Christian author is 'relevant', only furnishes still more evidence, that will eventually be used to make the case that there is indeed an inherent systemic bias, specifically against Christianity, among the "proprietors" of this article. Til Eulenspiegel 11:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Til, if you read the archives, every significant addition to this article is examined. There is a plethora of Ark-related commentary and data out there, and as this is an article, not a comprehensively exhaustive book, we must be selective. Please stop accusing others of bias; your constant attacks on fellow editors is not helpful. Instead, focus on the article - do you feel the Hippolytus content is worth including? Why or why not? KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is b;atant bias and favoritism. Moreover, this discussion is strictly about the article content and nothing else, so your criticisms here seem to show your customary favoritism (which is all in the permanent record, and I stand by every word I have said). The Hippolytus content is worth including. His comments were echoed by Baidawi a 13th century Muslim writer, and Mediaeval Rabbinic writers, but noone is contesting their inclusion tooth and nail. Note that Hipp. who lived in the first century, before Christianity was even legalized in Rome, mentions "Mount Ararat" by name. According to the article Searches for Noah's Ark, the first author to mention a "Mount Ararat" by name lived in the 5th century. So yes, this is highly significant, and only an extreme systemic bias would consider cutting it out of bigotry. Til Eulenspiegel 11:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Til, I'm really tired of your constant attacks on me. Stop beating that horse. Either post on AN/I, file an Rfc, or drop it.

Ok, I've looked at the content of the exigis.[8][9], and in addition to the three stories bit, H. also gave the names of the wives on the Ark, and recounted a story about Noah and his sons going into a cave where they found a lot of dead bodies of significant ancestors: "And on their first approach, indeed, they happily found the bodies of the fathers, Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kainan, Mahaliel, Jared, Mathusalach, and Lamech. Those eight bodies were in the place of deposits, viz., those of Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kainan, Mahaliel, Jared, Mathusalach, and Lamech." He recounts that Noah took the body of Adam on the Ark. Other than that, he doesn't say anything particularly interesting. As a side note, H. also recounts how to make a skull talk.[10]

Til, do you have a source for Baidawi? Right now I'm not seeing anything in particular about the H. content except the three stories bit, is that expanded on anywhere? Is it relevant? Right now the only reason you have given for inclusion is that H. was supported by B., which IMO isn't much help if we don't have the B. text to look at; and that he was the first to mention Ararat. If H. was the first to mention Ararat, that is indeed highly significant, but we need a source saying specifically that H. was the first - we cannot state it of our own knowledge, that is OR. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Islam section of this article quotes Baidawi as saying there were 3 levels in the Ark, but puts them in a different order, and that males and females were separated by Adam's body. If that 13th century account was added to the article without any objection or litmus-test for certain agendas, why would there a problem with a patristic account that is 1000 yeras older?

I do not have any idea who was "the first" to mention a Mount Ararat (as opposed to "mountains of Ararat". But I am certain that your Wikipedia article Searches for Noah's Ark that claims a certain "Faustus of Byzantium" of the fifth century, as supposedly being the first author to ever speak of a single Mount Ararat, is both mistaken AND original research. Til Eulenspiegel 14:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Then that needs to be removed, or at the very least citeneeded added. Sorry to say, the Searches article tends to get cluttered with original research on a regular basis, as well as POV edits.

Does anyone on this talk page know who was the first to mention Ararat? That should be included in the article, if we can source it adequately.

Baidawi is dated from around (1226-60) to about 1286. That puts him about a thousand years after Hippolytus, yes? Its a logical assumption that Baidawi got his data from, if not Hippolytus, then from a source which used Hippolytus, although it seems unclear where Hippolytus got his info - although given the dreck he wrote about other things he probably swallowed a lot of rumours and hearsay. Is there a source which states that Baidawi used H. as a source? If there is, I see three possible places for the info:

1. In the H. para
2. In the B. para, as a possibly parenthetical bit
3. Both

IMO, its either 2 or 3. I welcome feedback. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be a "logical assumption", but it is still an assumption, and one I do not know anyone to have ever published. I would not make that assumption myself. Hipp. and Baid. were both students of Syrian traditions, and my guess would be that both were reporting on the same thing, not that Baid. had access to Hipp. But we don't have to engage in any original conjecture here at all. Hipp is at least one of the first Christian authors to give a Christian viewpoint on the Ark, so he belongs in the Christianity section. Baid. is a Muslim author, so he belongs in the Islam section. I don't know of any published source specifially connecting the two. Til Eulenspiegel 14:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Too true, which is why I asked if you had a source. If you do happen to come across a good source for the source of H and B's info, please post it, and unless someone objects we'll add it to the article. I don't know that anything goes back further than H at this date, but then I'm not an expert. Same for first person to mention Mount Ararat - my money is on H, as he recounted so much urban legend and crap, but that's mere speculation on my part, no sources at all.

Nice fix on the ref, btw - this being Wikipedia, if there is an online version of a source, it is always good to add it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Now puppy, you aren't actually saying that someone actually saw this mythical ark? You're just asking the first claim to seeing the mythical ark, right? Orangemarlin 21:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea where you think you see I'm saying anyone saw a thing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides, what does it matter? We aren't here to argue what we believe. If a person makes good, NPOV, sourced edits, I don't care if they believe the earth is flat. There are a lot of sites for arguing whose beliefs are right, and this isn't one. Sxeptomaniac 23:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a description of the Ark would be appropriate, and if this is one of the early sources for it, so be it. We should take care not to duplicate material, though; however, a description of the ark would be good, I think. Conversely, though, this is pretty obviously Christian mysticism, and a lot of it doesn’t seem all that notable (floated in the sign of the cross? Pure comedy gold). It looks like someone trying to tie the Ark to Jesus to me, and I don’t care that he lived in the second century. I think stating there were three storeys to the ark would be useful, but I don’t think the rest is at all relevant to the article or notable enough for inclusion. Titanium Dragon 04:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Til, stop being paranoid - I said I had no inherent objection to your addition, but wondered whether it added any points that weren't already present in the material from Origen, Jerome and Augustine, who are far better known figures. Titanium, there's nothing wrong with quoting Christian mysticism, if the Ark has some appearance there - but in fact Hippolytus was a translator and interpreter of Jewish texts. So this is scholarship (of it's time), not mysticism. Inidentally, back to Til: you seem to thuink Hippolytus is earlier than the Jewish traditions, but the earliest of those traditions date from at least the time of Christ, and probably a few centuries before that even - Hippolytus was adapting those traditions to Christianity, not simply reporting them. And as for Hippolytus getting in first with the identification of Ararat as a single mountain where the Ark came to rest, yes indeed, Searches for Noah's Ark seems to be wrong on that point - feel free to edit it.

Whoops - meant to add an explanation of my recent edits to the Christian traditions section. What I tried to do was to arrange the various bits of information by subject matter and, more roughly, by the date at which they appeared. Early Christian authors approached the Ark with two objectives in mind, namely allegory (and Hippolytus falls into this area - he wasn't just recording facts for the sake of it, he was trying to link the Ark story to the theological meaning of Christ's coming), PiCo and apologetics, which was what Origen was doing in giving practical answers to problems raised by scoffing pagans on such matters as whether the Ark was big enough for all the animals. Til does make a good case for keeping Hippolytus, but I still wonder whether he's prominant enough - the general reader, faced with Hipp's name, is likely to say, "so who's he?" PiCo 06:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're arguing that Hippolytus may be "unencyclopedic", becuase the average reader is unlikely to have ever heard of him?

Now I've heard everything!

At any rate, it may well be that Judaic sources had recounted these same legends that he did, before he did. But we as yet don't have any published source that makes this case, or any hard evidence. So stating this is Original Synthesis. The earliest Jewish documents stating anything similar (ie that the Ark had 3 stories) only appear in the Middle Ages. Now you might have a strong case that the Jewish legends really are older, and that Hippolytus directly borrowed from them, and you might even convince me, and you might be correct, but unless someone other than a wikipedian has ever actually argued this point, it's still Original Research. Til Eulenspiegel 11:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that H. is unencyclopeadiac because he's obscure, but that we should quote well-known writers in preference to little-known ones - we're trying to reflect what the Church believed, not what individuals believed, and Jerome, Origen and Augustine are far more representative of the Church as a whole than is H. As for H. and the Jewish traditions, he was quite consciously quoting those traditions - that's why he was known as "Translator of the Targum". PiCo 05:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the "Targum" is a Syriac version used by Syrian Christians. I suspect you are probably right that St. Hippolytus was quoting an as-yet unattested earlier Jewish tradition, but I feel strongly that we should strictly stick to stating what we can source, without adding any of our own conjectures. In this case, the relevance comes from the fact that it is a very early source or evidence we have for these Syrian traditions existing, it's not about the actual person who is quoting the traditions. Til Eulenspiegel 06:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've deleted the sentences which say H. was basing himself on the Jewish traditions. Please bear in mind that I have no objection in principle to including H. in the article, I just want to keep it manageable - if H. says what Jerome and others say, there's no need to add him. My focus is on the theological meaning which early Christians gave to the Ark (reinterpreting it in a Christian framework) - I find it fascinating that whereas the Jewish writers seem to have had largely practical concerns ("how did Noah get light inside the Ark? ... well, he had these stones that shone as bright as midday..."), the early Christians were almost as preoccupied with allegorical meanings. Neither are exclusive, of course - the Jewish writers were very concerned with the question of righteousness, and the Christians had to find answers to literal-minded pagans who questioned how Noah managed to fit all those animals on board. But the distinction is important - the old traditions were not simply catalogues of facts, they were facts plus meanings. PiCo 06:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That could be one interpretation I suppose, but H's info is certainly presented in the form of extra, concrete details that are not found in Jerome or the other later patristic writers, as far as I know. The entire fragment on Noah's Ark in Hippolytus has many fascinating details beside what he says was on the Ark, such as the names of the three daughters-in-law according to the Peshitta, the story of Noah being told to destroy the first person who said the flood is comng, then when it turned out to be Ham's wife, he is told not to destroy her, but instead the bread in the oven was destroyed, etc. If these things were meant to be "allegorical", he does not make this clear, but rather leaves it to the reader to deduce any 'between the lines' meaning if there is one. I didn't mention all this in the paragraph, because this is the article specifically about the Ark, so I tried to keep the entry to his physical, tangible description of the Ark, but his little gem about demons who throw visitors off of Mount Ararat to stop them from finding the Ark should be a fitting entry over at Searches for Noah's Ark, I would think. (And NO, I am not trying to argue that this is true! Only interesting, and encyclopedic, for tracing the development of the story through the ages! Especially seeing as we haven't yet unearthed anyone else who lived earlier than 200 AD, to whom these kind of views have been attributed...) Til Eulenspiegel 06:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot Archiving?

Should we move to bot archiving? Set the timer for no posts for 14 days, or 30 days, say? This page is always a bit of a pain to archive. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be for that. Set it for 30 days, and if it doesn't help, we can change. I want to watch how you do this, because I've always been curious. Orangemarlin 18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else? Pro, Con, Questions? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. :) TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who is NOT making a joke? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

By which I mean, of course, that bot archiving is a good idea. The page is unwieldy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, no objections? Fine, doing it. Please note I did not set up incremental right now, we'll have to advance the archiving manually or decide how big is too big an archive. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting intro to Other flood stories/Mesopotamian flood myths

I deleted the intro to this section - anyone interested in seeing it can look it up in the history section - because in my view it took up too much space (this is already a very long article) and said too little. The relevance of Mesopotamian flood myths to the Noah's Ark story is contained in the remaining section. Comment welcome. PiCo 02:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus or compelling reason to suppress this information, so I am restoring it. Til Eulenspiegel 03:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with PiCo. Reverting. Orangemarlin 06:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted again. Til is still as disruptive as ever, I see. •Jim62sch• 12:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem. Til Eulenspiegel 12:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You reverted twice, on the basis that you didn't see consensus. That's disruptive. -- Ec5618 12:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That's also not what ad hominem means. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem means taking the argument away from the facts and "to the man", ie trying to argue about the person making the argument, a classic tactic common in politics of the last 15 years that is also logical fallacy. For example, making comments like "Til, you're living up to the meaning of your moniker..." as we saw earlier today, is an ad hominem. What does my "moniker" mean to you anyway? Was it the story of a simple man who exposed pretentiousness with his wit and made the haughty high and mighty self-styled "authorities" perpetually cringe? Or do you see it as having something to do with owls and mirrors? Either way, it's an ad hominem because it is irrelevant. Til Eulenspiegel 05:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(Reducing indent). Here's the deleted intro to the "Other flood stories" section. Repeating what I said above, my reason for deleting was that it's very long and doesn't actually say much - not much of direct relevance to Noah's Ark, anyway. I'm not saying that any of it is untrue - flood myths are indeed widespread - but they aren't Noah's flood. The crunch for Til comes in the first sentence of the second para - "Biblical literalists point to these stories as evidence that the biblical deluge, and the Ark, represent real history" - this is true, but do we need all these words to make that point? PiCo 13:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Flood stories are widespread in world mythology, with examples available from practically every society. Noah's counterpart in Greek mythology was Deucalion; in Hindu texts, a terrible flood was supposed to have left only one survivor, a saint named Manu (reputed author of the Manu Smriti law code), who was saved by Vishnu in the form of a fish; and in the Zoroastrian Avesta the figure of Yima saves a remnant of mankind from destruction by ice in an "enclosure" (vara). Flood stories have been found also in the mythologies and religions of many preliterate peoples, from areas distant from Mesopotamia and the Eurasian continent; the Chippewa Indians' legend is but one example.[22]

Biblical literalists point to these stories as evidence that the biblical deluge, and the Ark, represent real history; ethnologists and mythologists suggest that legends such as the Chippewa have to be treated with great caution due to the possibility of syncretism from contact with Christianity (and the desire to shape traditional material to fit the newly adopted religion), as well as a common need to explain common natural disasters over which early societies had no control.[citation needed]

I am perfectly capable of speaking for myself, PiCo. Don't write things like "The crunch for Til comes blah blah blah" because you cannot read my mind. In fact, you are wrong. The part I particularly want to keep is the mention of the Avesta, Yima and Vara. This is fair to mention in the article as a parallel to the Flood story (Vara being a parallel to the Ark), it is easily referenced as such, and it is not fair to delete or suppress it. Please put it back. It isn;t there to prove anything or make any point, it is only there simply because it is entirely encyclopedic to trace these parallel developments that one would find in any book on the subject, and it's unencyclopedic to leave it out with no very good reason. Til Eulenspiegel 20:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't get to draw those parallels yourself. That would be original research. You need to find a reliable source that does. But they don't sound all that similar to me anyway. (No boat or rescued animals in the Manu story, and the Zoroastrian story isn't about a flood.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not drawing any paralells myself, nor am I engaging in original research. Finding a source shouldn;t be too hard. As I said above already, if you were actually to do some research, practically any book on the subject of Noah's Ark you might pick up is going to pick up on the parallels with the Zoroastrian Yima and the Vara. And vice versa. Til Eulenspiegel 20:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this book? If that's not enough there are lots more [11]

Til Eulenspiegel 21:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you read it? Do you know what it says? Can you reference a specific page?

Also, someone wrote an entire book on the Zoroastrian Yima? Must have been quite the best-seller. •Jim62sch• 21:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice, the "a sort of"? •Jim62sch• 21:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And here it is in Britannica. [12] But I guess here, it's "original research", just because you don't like it. Til Eulenspiegel 21:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Iranian religion also had a variant of the Noah's Ark myth. In this myth, Yama appears as the first herdsman and leader of humankind. After a long rule during which he has to enlarge the earth three times owing to overcrowding, Ahura Mazda tells him that a great winter is coming and advises him to prepare for it by building a gigantic three-story barnlike structure (vara) to hold pairs of animals and seeds of plants."

Til Eulenspiegel 21:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, when EB says "gigantic", it is understating. The dimensions of the Vara were said to be two miles to a side. Another interesting, encyclopedic tidbit you may want to consider adding. Til Eulenspiegel 21:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Now was that so hard? Please -- don't add unreferenced material to a featured article. It brings down the quality. Of course, a secondary source would be better than the Britannica, but the one you cited from Google Books is one of those Indo-centric weirdness that we're better off leaving out entirely. The overall thesis is that all modern monotheistic religions are based on the Vedas. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Some scholars do say the Vedas inspired the other religions, but that is of course much more contentious. But any source you can find that even mentions the Vara, is also going to mention the Ark. I admit I know nothing about the google book, I found it in one minute google search, so it may not be worthy, but for that one that isn;t, there are scores more that surely are. Til Eulenspiegel 21:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, old Ganga gets 300+ hits on "Ganga Prasad"+religion. Whoo-hoo! •Jim62sch• 21:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I must be missing the part about the flood and the boat. •Jim62sch• 21:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus of scholars who actually study such thungs as "Comparative religion" is that there are parallels between the Avestan Yima story, the Vedic Manu story, and the Biblical Noah story, regardless of whether there is an actual boat and a flood, or a "vara". If you can find a source disputing this connection, I would like to see it. There may be some disagreement over whether one of these stories directly inspired the others, and if so, in what order, but no scholars disputes the paralells between the Ark and the Vara AFAIK. Til Eulenspiegel 21:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I see you still don't get it. It's the other way around. We cite things we want to include, not things we want to leave out. If it's an overwhelming consensus that these stories are parallel is should be easy to reference. And from a mainstream source, not one on the fringes. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean, not like the Encyclopedia Britannica? Til Eulenspiegel 21:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Britannica is acceptable, even if secondary sources are to be preferred. My point was just that we need something other than a sweeping assertion and a demand for contrary evidence. "You can't prove me wrong!" is insufficient for inclusion in the article. You have to prove yourself right. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Britannica is a tertiary source. A secondary source would be preferable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure who wrote that bit, but calling it a "variant of" is utter nonsense. Is causation proved (as in, Noah's ark was borrowed to create the other myth)? Are the parallels really all that close, or are they really tangents (like David v Goliath, and Odysseus v the Cyclops)? •Jim62sch• 21:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, moral of the story, Jim62sch is the authority, and the Britannica is Original research. Amazing. Til Eulenspiegel 21:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• How about Professor Darmesteter, the scholar who translated the Zend Avesta (whom the other source was quoting)? [13] Til Eulenspiegel 21:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Did Darmesteter make the correlation in a published work? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm taking sides here, but an online source is suddenly not good enough? This is an online version of a work published in 1880. In any event, this citation actually undermines Til's thesis. See this footnote [14] It seems the connection to the Hebrew Noah was made deliberately, even to the point of using the Hebrew word for "rain". This is therefore an a posteriori parallel, and isn't a good example of what this section is about. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah! I didn't see the footnote, thanks. Ok, we now have a comment in a footnote of a published work dating to 1880, correct? And the comment states the translator made the parallel and not the original work? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I think the footnote is from the original. It's the translator's saying that the Zoroastrian mythographer was trying to make that connection, and borrowed a Hebrew word for the purpose that was later misunderstood. Added: He was quoting a commentary there, but I can't tell if it was a traditional ancient commentary or not. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, stop saying these things like "undermines Til's thesis"... I have not actually made any kind of "thesis" here whatsoever, unless simply to point out that practically every scholar in the field who has ever had anything to say about the Vara, has made some kind of connection with the Ark - granted, some a stronger connection than others, but at a minimum, drawing similarities between the two. We should strictly leave our own "theses" out of it, and let the readers infer what they will, right? Til Eulenspiegel 00:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(Reducing indent). Til is actually correct, there is an established scholarly link between the biblical Ark and the Zoroastrian myth. Not only the Ark, either: scholars see Iranian influence in the Genesis creation account, in the conceptualisation of angels and demons, (the Zoroastrian Ahriman is described as "the prototype of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic Satan), in the post-Exilic development of the idea of the messiah, and many other areas. The Jews seem to have come into contact with Iranian religion at the end of the Exile, through the Persians - thus just in time to be included in the composition of the first chapters of Genesis. If Til really feels this is important, I'd be willing to put a sentence in saying that the Noah's Ark story was influenced by the Zoroastrian myth. PiCo

Once again, that would be drawing too much of an original inference that is disputed and not supported by any of the refs we have dug up. Just suffice it to say that scholars have noticed similarities between Noah's Ark and Yima's Vara. Something like: "Scholars have pointed out similarities between the Ark story and an account in the Avesta where Yima constructs a Vara - a three level structure, two miles square - to protect mankind from an ice age". This is more neutral - remember, there are also the POVs that the Zoroastrian story was influenced by Noah, or that both were dervied from the Vedas, etc., rather than the other way around, so we don't have to take any of these POVs, just state that they have been connected. Til Eulenspiegel 03:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that the section under discussion is about parallels in other mythologies which are used by literalists to bolster their claim that the deluge was a historic event. If the Persian myth was deliberately connected with the Biblical one at some point, as that one source says, then this is less meaningful than might otherwise be the case. It seems to me there are better parallels that might be drawn with other mythologies. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well we've got several different pictures of the Ark from several different sources. We've got those who say it was shaped like a cube, those who say it was shaped like a pyramid, etc., we've got all the various dimensions and floorplans, etc. Then we've got the description of the Vara, which is considered relevant to the Ark by those who publish books about Comparative Religion, other encyclopedias, etc. Note that I am not trying to argue that any one of these contradictory descriptions is "correct" or "incorrect", I merely find them all "encyclopedic" -- and the opposition to including this encyclopedic material, for the silliest pretexts, just seems to be a rabid knee-jerk assumption that I am using them to try to "convince" you of something, or building some kind of "thesis". You've got me all wrong, I just want to list them all, not synthesize them in any way, but what all this says about the way this article is edited isn't a very pretty picture, I'm afraid. Til Eulenspiegel 05:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Til, we have to have some mechanism for deciding what goes in and what doesn't, otherwise we end up with a book instead of an article. PiCo 05:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputing Neutrality

This article is not at all neutral and with one sided editors summarily deleting all cited, verified information that does not pass the litmus test of their agenda (they don't like it and wish it weren;t true, so they don;t want readers to access it) it is getting less and less neutral all the time. Til Eulenspiegel 12:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You can go back into the archive and see that the POV debate has a long history. Until every knee bows and every tongue confesses the same thing, frankly there will remain arguments about POV. But they make interesting reading and reveal a lot...Katherin 05:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV policy requires us to present EVERYTHING that is relevant to the topic, not only the things that support a certain POV. Til Eulenspiegel 12:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making grand claims, and try to make points regarding the text. Why should this be covered in the 'scientific and critical scholarship'-section? -- Ec5618 12:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Til, you sound a bit paranoid. There is no "agenda" here other than to maintain an FA article. And no, NPOV makes no such claim re "relevance" as relevance is a vague and often disputed concept.

For the rest, I agree with Ec -- explain why the material belongs in the 'scientific and critical scholarship' section. •Jim62sch• 12:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The section proposed was POV: It listed any myth that had a flood willy-nilly, without making any effort to show how, say, a legend of being turned into a fish related to Noah's Ark. It was unreferenced, avoided mentioning any criticism of the idea, and so on. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is actually very POV towards the religious aspects of Noah's Ark. There is barely a reference to the undisputed facts that there was never a worldwide flood, that it's impossible for a ship that large to stay afloat, and that a few hundred animals stuffed on a boat wouldn't account for the diversity of species today. So, if anything, I'd throw an NPOV tag on it for being an unbalanced article to religious POV. However, we don't do that, but at least we're going to keep the religious aspects accurate and reference. Orangemarlin 16:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Orange, Your comments always make for a good read. Did you not notice the categories of “Abrahamic mythology” and “Mythological ships”? But since you asked Dr. Gillespie (and maybe Dr. Donbaz) for a denial of their involvement, then I actually have a special level of respect for you.

If you honestly had a desire to make it more scientific then by now you would have included the Ahora Covenant inscription published in National Geographic research and Exploration article from 1994 [15]. You would also have included in the article the only latitude and longitude location ever published in a notice of discovery about the Ark.[16] Since there has never been a worldwide flood, then you certainly would have recognized the value of including the only scientifically testable announcement of the Ark’s location. To disprove it would settle the score for generations to come, since there never has been a scientifically testable announcement of discovery before; How many years would it take for a new scientific opportunity to come along.. I mean since the hope is to make the article more scientific. Hugs. Katherin 06:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there is a content dispute, there needs to be a NPOV tag until all NPOV issues are resolved. Pretending there is no dispute because I do not "count" and only certain editors do, is arrogant, insulting, and at the centre of what this content dispute is about. Please do not unilaterally remove dipute tags again, I have every bit as much right here as anyone else. Til Eulenspiegel 19:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying you don't "count". You have yet to provide anything but your assertion that these things are POV in any way. Other editors are attempting to discuss this with you. Please take the time to discuss this rationally. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit; this is not the encyclopedia anyone can disrupt. Work in good faith with your fellow editors. I assure you, the world will not end tomorrow. We can afford to take our time to discuss this politely, rather than rushing into accusations and edit warring. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: this is a Featured article, and as such, changes are more carefully considered, and consensus must be gained on the talk page prior to making them. If you make an edit and it is reverted, do not revert again, discuss on talk. Work with other editors to gain consensus. Be aware that edit warring against consensus is disruptive. Please ask me if you have any questions at all about this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Question: wasn't the bit about the parallels in the "featured" version, and was consensus achieved prior to PiCo's removing it? Or does the above prescription only apply to certain editors here, while certain others are exempt? Til Eulenspiegel 00:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Provide a diff. Don't make unsubstantiated claims. Orangemarlin 04:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's no answer to my question, is it? Is the question too hard for you? Til Eulenspiegel 05:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I will remind the Til Eulenspiegel to be aware of uncivil comments to other editors. Once again, you have made an accusation regarding PiCo's editing, but you have not substantiated it. I am not going to look for the edits, because I did not make the accusation. Please provide the diff. Orangemarlin 05:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was not even talking to you, but since you bothered to say please this time instead of issue me an imperative, I will tell you it was the edit in which PiCo suddenly removed the section without any agreement to do so whjatsoever, and this section was in there since long before this was ever a Featured Article. So I see a double standard here, with two classes of editors - those to whom "extra rules" apply, and those who have free reign to do as they wish without fear of breaking any rules. In other words some people are using the "featured article" thing as an excuse to dismantle the version that was featured, not preserve it, while giving the opposite impression, very clever.. Til Eulenspiegel 05:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the portion I removed was in the FA. But I put a note here on the Talk page and asked other editors for comments - in other words, I sought concensus. That's what the discussion is about. (Incidentally, I was the one who put it in the FA version in the first place.) PiCo 05:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaurs?

Perhaps we should mention this somewhere in the article. http://www.yahoo.com/s/589907 I didn't do it. 22:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If anywhere, it would belong in the last sentenec of the last paragraph of the Literalism section - but that sentence is already overburdened IMO. Somewhere in the wonderful world of Wiki there's an article on dinos and the flood, or dinos and the ark, and you could consider adding a "see also" link to that in the appropriate section. PiCo 02:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I am now officially nauseous. Those people couldn't have used $25 million to, well I don't know, help the poor? Feed the starving? Something Christian? What a waste. Orangemarlin 04:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, what the hell is that interviewer doing? About Adam living with dinosaurs he says: "Scientists .. A lot of scientists .. Secular scientists say that's not true." -- Ec5618 07:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

99.6% of the scientists in the US would say not only is it not true, but Adam never existed, and dinosaurs died out 64.5 million years ago. Typical right-wing press pandering to the Christian right. The Right Wing press gave us Bush, now this waste of good money. I'm still nauseous. Orangemarlin 14:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The upshot of the discussion of the issue at Wikipedia talk:NPOV is that while Wikipedia indeed requires neutrality between religious and scientific points of view when a controversy between the two is claimed, and it cannot endorse one or the other to the reader, nonetheless scientists are in charge of saying what is correct science just as theologians are in charge of saying what is correct religious doctrine. A representation that a particular point of view is scientific or is supported by scientists has to come from credible scientific sources (just as a claim that a particular statement is correct religious doctrine has to come from credible theologians of the religious denomination involved), and recognized experts in the respective field are to be prefered over general media. Once again, per WP:NPOV, While Wikipedia can say whether something is science or supported by scientists, it cannot endorse a particular worldview of method of making sense of reality and hence it cannot say whether what scientists say is true. --Shirahadasha 18:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Shira is essentially correct pursuant to the pseudoscience arbitration and the undue weight clause of NPOV. The second is relevant not just due to the opinions of science in this case but also because most major religious denominations do not believe in a literal genesis story. JoshuaZ 03:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Civility

I would urge keeping this discussion civil and on topic. Statements pushing political or religious (or anti-religious) positions as such are particularly inflammatory and inappropriate to this talk page under the talk page guidelines. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Then archive the Dinosaur section. I still think it's not so far off-topic, that it didn't warrant a humorous discussion or two. Orangemarlin 06:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mythological ships category

Hi! A proposal was made on Category talk:Mythological ships to delete the catrgory. Since the proper place to discuss category deletions is WP:CfD, I've transfered the deletion discussion there as a procedural matter. Please join this discussion. Here's a repeat of the standard notice with link to the discussion:

Best, --Shirahadasha 19:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the proposal over there. I am going to delete the category from this article on the grounds that Noah's ark (real or mythical) was not clearly a ship. It is called a "vessel" in the opening sentence. There is no reason to think it could be propelled or steered as a ship must be. Steve Dufour 04:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It was propelled and steered and guided by God. You are deying the might and power of God by not calling it His ship through he saved all life for us! PiCo 03:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If it was propelled and steered by God then it was a barge, not a ship. Steve Dufour 04:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "ship" as "any large seagoing vessel". The category stays. --Gene_poole 04:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we discussed this previously, and the conversation was settled. I love this habit of bringing up stuff over and over and over and over and over and over...oops...again. It's a ship. It was mythical. The category definitely will stay. Orangemarlin 04:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I only came across this discussion yesterday. To me it seems that every large object that floats on water is not a ship. That is why we have words like "barge" "pontoon" and so forth. I would think that to most English speakers a ship has to have some way of getting to where it is going. From the story in the Bible (and I do believe it is a story BTW) the Ark seems to float passively on the water. It is not "seagoing". Steve Dufour 04:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Note:While WP:CONSENSUS makes clear that consensus is not permanent and new editors with new opinions entering the picture can result in consensus changing, nonetheless it's not a good idea to change something that's been heavily discussed without talking about it. I also want to remind editors of the three revert rule and strongly discourage editing in a back-and-forth fashion. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I love our rules, but the fact is the discussion was settled a month ago, maybe more. We got down to the fine points of OED definitions of everything. It was concluded it was a ship and again, before we repeat ourselves over and over, why can't others read what was written, especially when the editor obviously isn't at the level of an anonymous vandal, but appears to be an intelligent, well-informed editor? Orangemarlin 06:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I got a little carried away. However the Ark, although in my opinion mythical, was not a "seagoing vessel." It did not have the power to go anywhere. Steve Dufour 12:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's where I am troubled by Biblical inerrancy. You can't have a shifting target, that the Bible says one thing or another as a defense against what is another interpretation. Where does it say it did not have the power to go anywhere? Are you "interpreting" that it does not? If you are making that interpretation, why can you not "interpret" that this whole story is a metaphor (taking my logic to an extreme). Anyways, a seagoing vessel does not presume power. Trying to prove that the ark existed by disputing every little thing that is written here is the wrong way to go about it (especially dealing with definition of words). You lack positive written or physical proof, so therefore it is mythical. Orangemarlin 12:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I personally believe that the story of Noah is an myth, allegory, or something of the kind. If you read the story you will see that there is no mention of sails, nor have I ever seen a picture of Noah's Ark with sails. I also don't think that the eight people on board would be very effective at rowing it. I guess they could have harnessed whales to it and pulled it that way, however in that case it would be considered a "barge" not a "ship". At least in all my years living near one of the world's major seaports I have never heard of a ship that can not travel over the water. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 01:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As I understand the argument being made here, it's being claimed that the term "ship", somewhat like the term "myth", has a technical meaning that's somewhat different from its popular meaning, and it is being argued that if one term should be understood in a technical sense, then both should be. What is the evidence that the term "ship" used in a technical sense refers only to a vessel that can proceed under its own power and excludes a seagoing barge? Which dictionary/ies are you using to reach this result? In all candor, given the amount of dispute this issue has had, if the only evidence is "I think most English speakers..." etc., this proposal is probably a non-starter. Note that an editor has found an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary, a very well-recognized dictionary, that suggests otherwise. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

wWhat an odd discussion? Is the debate over "ship" or over "mythical?" Noah's ark - historical reality or literary invention - was obviously a sea-going vessel, but it is essential to the Biblical narrative that it was neither self-propelled nor self-navigating (steering), that is why it is called an ark. But what does that have to do with the discussion over deleting "mythical ships?" Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I must confess. I am a theologically liberal, universalist Christian. I would personally like to see fundamentalist Christians develop a more open-minded view of the Bible. I don't think that insulting and offending them will be very helpful towards that goal. With that in mind I am trying to get the story of Noah's Ark out the category "mythical ships". The Ark's non-ship status, although I am perfectly sincere in my opinion that it was not one, is a technicality I am using to try to end the "controversy", not very effectively it seems. :-) - Steve Dufour 01:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Duh

Before I get deluged (get it?) by dozens of comments, I know that Armenia is a country. I was half-asleep, and really meant to say that Ararat is in Turkey, and I don't think that Wikipedia is a placed to discuss what may be historical Armenia or not. I'm tired. Lots of POV reversions today. Orangemarlin 06:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Duhhh

• Category:Legendary ships
  • Category:Ghost ships
  • Category:Mythological ships
  • Category:Noah's Ark
    • Noah's Ark
    • Mountains of Ararat
    • Searches for Noah's Ark
    • Wives aboard the Ark
    • etc

-- Nigel Barristoat 16:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)