Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

← Archive 5.5

Archive 6

Archive 7 →

Sheep and QI

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islamic literalism section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Til, your para (or section) says there are "group[s within Islam" that hold to a literal reading of the Ark. I'd go further, I think that the majority of Muslims, both ordinary folk and scholars, hols to the literal truth of the Koran. I'd be happy to change accordingly, but I leave it to you. PiCo (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Widened the scope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The policy I referred to above: [1] Which I think is pretty clear that what you are arguing about is contrary to policy.

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

* In sociology, it refers to a narrative that is important for a group, and may or may not be true, but is not verifiable. * In folkloristics, it means a sacred narrative that is believed to be true. * In common use, it usually refers to a narrative that is believed to be false. Except in rare cases (e.g., urban myth), the common meaning should neither be used, nor assumed. Do not use the word to refer to propaganda or to mean "something that is commonly believed but untrue".

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

New section proposal

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

The Ark In Current Christian Interpretation

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

Biblical Literalist and Fundamentalist Interpretations

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

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

Liberal and Non-Fundamentalist Interpretations

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

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

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

Historicity

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

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

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

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

The search for Noah's Ark

Main article: Searches for Noah's Ark

For centuries, Mount Ararat (pictured here) has been searched for remains of Noah's ark. Recently Mount Sabalan in Iran, over 300 km (200 miles) away, has been under investigation.

Biblical literalists feel that finding the Ark would validate their views on a whole range of matters, from geology to evolution. "If the flood of Noah indeed wiped out the entire human race and its civilization, as the Bible teaches, then the Ark constitutes the one remaining major link to the pre-flood World. No significant artifact could ever be of greater antiquity or importance.... [with] tremendous potential impact on the creation-evolution (including theistic evolution) controversy". Non-Fundamentalist Christians typically believe the discovery of the Ark is unimportant to the historicity of the Genesis flood narrative, and that the Ark cannot be found as it would have long since been destroyed by weather or recycled for other projects.

Searches have concentrated on Mount Ararat in Turkey itself, although Genesis actually refers only to the mountains of Ararat.The Durupinar site, near but not on Ararat, and much more accessible, attracted attention in the 1980s and 1990s; In early 2004 a Honolulu businessman traveled to Washington DC to “announce with great fanfare” a planned expedition to investigate a site he called the Ararat anomaly but National Geographic later concluded it may have been an ineffective stunt to “persuade the Turkish government into granting him a permit” that “few expeditions have actually obtained.”; and in 2006 there was brief flurry of interest when an expedition reported a potential site in Iran.

In 2007, a joint Turkish-Hong Kong expedition team found what is thought to be fossilized wood in a cave on Mount Ararat in Turkey. A sample of the "wood" was analyzed by the Department of Earth Sciences of the University of Hong Kong but the results were inconclusive. The origin of the out-crop remains unknown, but the group suggests that it is part of Noah's Ark. Photos of geologic thin-sections of the "wood" have been examined by several creationary geologists who concur that this is likely volcanic tuff. It has been suggested that the finding is a ploy to increase tourism in the area.]

I would like to see this discussed please. At present the entire previous section has been completely deleted by PiCo, who simply replaced it with a short section describing exactly what he wants the article to say. He did not discuss this edit with anyone, as usual. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

(indent) Forgive me if I missed something (and I just checked here, on your page, on my page), but I've only ever noticed you give one link, to an answers.com page on which there was a single quote to "dead religion" surrounded by other definitions and other quotes which define it as "sacred narrative" or similar. Take another 5 seconds then please.. I imagine you'd be able to supply a dictionary definition that has mythology/myth either synonymous with "religion" or "dead religion". I don't think that single quote (which may or may not be in context) about dead religion really trumps the handful of dictionary definitions on the same page which define it correctly/consistently. From that answers.com page[2]:

First one:

n.

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

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

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

noun

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

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

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

(adjective: mythical) ,

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

adjective: mythic ).

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

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

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

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

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

Yup.. Next.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subheadings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's another religious figure (Archbishop of Adelaide, Australia) describing the ark as [3] "Present at the fundraising function was the Anglican Archbishop of Adelaide, the Most Reverend Ian George. Claiming support of most scholars he called Noah's Flood an "etiological myth" which originated from a range of sources."

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

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

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

You want more references this significant POV really does exist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, First book:

Talks about the original Babylonian myth, then ...

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

Just noting here from our own article,

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

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

Second book:

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

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

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

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

Third and fourth books:

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refocus

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

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

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

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

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

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

Framing the subject

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

Response from Ben

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

Actually, I'm not sure myself - I've never taken part in a MedCab case before. However, reading the comments over at the case's entry, I figured that your comments above seemed pretty pertinent. Anyway, I'll be following everyone else's lead here! Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 22:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Response from Til Eulenspiegel

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something you mentioned is the very definition of fringe pseudoscience theory on the Noah's descendents: any actual studies? because the studies of human genetic lines I've never seen a single mention of Noah in there. There's no scientific backing for this at all in scientific fields which show a wide spread of humanity through the ages, with migration from Africa [4], [5]. e.g. that's a fringe theory you're citing as needing coverage or consideration. I would say that under WP policy it has no place on wikipedia as a fringe theory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response from NathanLee

Britannica mentions: "The Old Testament is usually regarded as embodying much material that anthropologists would regard as containing mythical themes in just the same way as the practices of the ancient Greeks, Chinese, or Abenaki Indians are bound up with myths." The term "flood mythology" is used all over the place: Britannica on flood myth (has references to Noah's ark in jewish mythology. An archbishop in Australia [9] described it as "Present at the fundraising function was the Anglican Archbishop of Adelaide, the Most Reverend Ian George. Claiming support of most scholars he called Noah's Flood an "etiological myth" which originated from a range of sources."

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

Note on religion and mythology:
In its academic sense, the word myth means "a traditional story", especially one that is held as sacred or important in a specific culture. Unless otherwise noted, the words mythology and myth are here used in this sense, with no implication as to the factuality or historicity of the events related within the story.

The argument was at one stage that it is offensive and that we should not use it (despite it being accurate). As to why the "offensive" argument (which hasn't been made with any references as yet) is irrelevant:try images of Mohammed (unlike this argument we have many examples of reliable sources about people dying in riots over images of Muhammad causing offence.. yet for accuracy in the article it is left in article about wikipedia images of muhammad, haven't yet seen a reference about any sort of widespread offence about the term mythology). If there is some evidence that the there is a significant view that the term mythology doesn't apply perhaps that would lend weight to the argument against it, but dictionary definitions, academic use, religious leaders (I've found a pope and an archbishop at least) seem to have no issue. Some examples of variations: "The fabled Noah's ark" [10], referred to as legend, typical flood myth. Pope argues specifically against literal/fundamentalist interpretations see above. References in books: The Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis, OT myth.

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

• This story is mentioned in Deluge (mythology), Christian mythology, Islamic mythology, Jewish mythology. To argue that religious stories cannot be called mythology for christian ones is blatantly biased when we have Greek mythology, Aboriginal mythology etc.
• There's been no attempt to provide any definition or reference that states that this story is not mythology.
• As the article says a literal interpretation was abandoned by scientists and biblical scholars back in the 19th century(references: Plimer, Ian (1994) "Telling Lies for God: reason versus creationism" (Random House), Browne, Janet (1983). The Secular Ark: Studies in the History of Biogeography. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-02460-6., Young, Davis A. (1995). "History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth" and [11]).
• some people believe myths to be true (the definitions, myth box, mythology, christian mythology, Islamic, jewish etc mythology pages all say that, so it explicitly allows for that possibility).
• no dictionary definition has indicated that this term is a hate word or offensive etc (or any reference WHATSOEVER by the way that this term is offensive)
• as far as the evidence goes it seems no one in this argument it seems now is arguing that this is to be considered historical fact
• So if it certainly isn't historical fact, and the dictionary definitions and wikipedia policy states how the term is to be used: what's the argument for not using this common term that's used all over wikipedia and the rest of the world to refer to stories exactly like this.
• It may have been based on a local flood, but the significant elements of the story (all world's animals on an ark, global flood, just one family remaining, logistics of the ark) has been "unequivocally rejected" (said an article on the BBC) by science.

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

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

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

Response from Taiwanboi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response from Plumbago

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of Best Book as "Not Relevant"

I added the following text and it was removed:

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

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

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

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

Best's work is referenced by the following works:

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

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

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

The 'literalist' sabotage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10