Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive 5.1

← Archive 5

Archive 5.1

Archive 5.2 →

Where did Noah get the kangaroos?

Should that be discussed in the article?--Steven X 05:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is that the problem of gathering the animals was noticed in ancient times (although not with specific reference to kangaroos); the subsection "Rabbinic tradition" gives a representative overview of Jewish traditions on this and related topics. Christian and Muslim commentators don't seem to have addressed it at all. (It's also frequently overlooked that that the authors of Genesis themselves noticed and dealt with a few practical implications of what modern writers would call "plot holes" - notably, the question of how the carnivores were prevented from eating the herbivores was solved by stating that all animals ate plants from the time of Creation up to the moment they exited the Ark). PiCo 05:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's for the heads-up. Well it was kinda addressed somewhere above.--Steven X 06:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to explain and without wanting to start a debate on it, some "Christian commentators"—specifically creationists—have addressed this, and in brief the answer from these creationists is as follows:

• Noah didn't have to gather the animals. The Bible specifically says that God brought them to Noah.
• The pre-flood world was not the same as the post-flood world, even to the extent of a rearrangement of the continents. On this basis, there is no reason to think that the kangaroos (etc.) had to come from the place now known as Australia anyway.

I'm sure that might raise some more questions in your mind, and I'd be happy to answer them, but I spend too much time arguing these things on these talk pages, so unless your further questions are directly relevant to the content of the article, please continue any further discussion with me by e-mail or on my talk page. Philip J. Rayment 13:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Philip. Notwithstanding your pointing out that Christians have in fact addressed this question, I'd still prefer not to add it to the article - that section is already quite long enough, and the Christian answers seem broadly in line with the Rabbinic ones. (Except for the idea of a different arrangement of continents - but I'd regard that as pertaining to the Flood rather than directly to the ARK). PiCo 11:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't answering with any intention of anything going in the article, but now that you mention it...

I don't necessarily see a need for it to go in the article, unless there is already something there to the contrary. And with a quick scan through the article I noticed that it says that defenders of the flood (characterised as "literalists") have varying explanations of how the animals travelled the globe to get to the ark, which presupposes that they had to travel the globe. Surely taking the narrative at face value and not reading it in the light of secular history, there is no grounds for this presupposition? I believe that ought to be changed.

Philip J. Rayment 15:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to improve it, PiCo, but I obviously didn't make myself clear. The article still presumes that, one way or another, the animals had to come from around the globe (from where they now live), instead of allowing for their pre-flood habitats to be much closer to the point of embarkation. Philip J. Rayment 09:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This really belongs in Flood Geology. You're talking about a curious view of plate tectonics that really has no place in this article, unless one were to simply note that the Bible is mute as to whence the animals. •Jim62sch• 11:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's all I was suggesting, that this article should not presume that the animals had to come from the far reaches of the globe. (Although to describe it as "a curious view" seems odd when it's actually the view of one of the leading plate tectonic researchers.) Philip J. Rayment 13:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And who, pray tell, might that be? With whom is he affiliated? From whom does he draw a salary? What is his education? By whose definition is he a "leading" researcher? Without that info you might as well tell me that Robert Wagner supports reverse mortgages. •Jim62sch• 17:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you're not aware of him? No, I guess not; he's a creationist, after all, and they probably don't count, as far as you're concerned?

1. Dr. John Baumgardner.
2. Until fairly recently, he worked for the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
3. Being a U.S. Government institution, presumably the government paid his salary.
4. B.S. (electrical engineering), M.S. (x 2) (electrical engineering; geophysics and space physics), Ph.D (UCLA) (geophysics and space physics).
5. U.S.News & World Report, 16 June 1997 . Also, New Scientist apparently spoke highly of his computer model of plate tectonics in an article in its 16 January 1993 issue. (On-line secondary sources for both of these are [1] and [2] respectively.)

Philip J. Rayment 09:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he hasn't published any of his creationist ideas on plate tectonics in the scientific press is why we haven't heard of him. He appears otherwise active scientifically, but one would struggle to interpret his published output as being supportive of creationism (at least from the abstracts I've read). He might well be able to square science with creationism in his own head, but he appears unable to persuade any scientific journal (New Scientist doesn't really count) to take his ideas seriously. Annoyingly, I can't quite see what these ideas are, since my university doesn't have online access to New Scientist (an interview with him was published there on 9 December 2006). Now, can I be bothered to track down a paper copy ... Anyway, I think we've drifted quite far from kangeroos, so I'll stop. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"The fact that he hasn't published any of his creationist ideas on plate tectonics in the scientific press is why we haven't heard of him.". Well, that's not very different to what I said! What you are also implying, of course, is that you also have no interest in learning about creationism, particularly from first-hand sources. Which is fine if you don't go around arguing that it's wrong, but a bit close-minded if you pretend to know enough about it to dismiss it.

And of course I wasn't suggesting that he had published his creationist views in journals that are known to be anti-creationist (!). I was simply making the point that one of the leading plate tectonics researchers has the view that Jim62sch described as a "curious view". I wasn't making anything more of it than that.

Philip J. Rayment 13:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. To be more explicit, I would be interested in creationism were it to say anything of scientific value. I'd have to be interested in it then, as it would become part of my job. As for "first-hand sources" on the scientific validity of creationism, the only sources worth perusing are scientific journals. If information lies outside of these, it's really not worth expending effort on (there's enough to read inside them as it stands). That might sound philistine or gauche, but if some ostensibly scientific idea can't cut the mustard and survive the peer-review of scientific journals, then it's almost certainly not up to much. And creationism is so far from satisfying even the most minimal requirements of science (avoiding flatly contradicting data would be a good start) that it's hard to see why anyone takes it seriously. Regarding "closed minds" (and paraphrasing shamelessly), it's good to have an open mind, but just not so open that one's brains fall out. Anyway, kangaroos seem far in the distance now ... --Plumbago 14:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's hard to take it seriously if you are refusing to actually find out what they say. Perhaps there's a valid reason that they don't publish in the journals you read, but because you've already set a criteria for them to meet, you have blocked yourself from finding out why they don't meet that criteria. Of course, there's also peer-reviewed scientific journals put out by creationists, but you'll find some reason to reject them, because the real problem is not a lack of peer-reviewed papers, but an ideological opposition to creation. Philip J. Rayment 13:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I knew we'd bump into "science as conspiracy theory" sooner or later. Anyway, I certainly don't have an ideological opposition to creation, what I have is an antipathy to creationism's ideological opposition to reality. A system of thought that begins with the answer and then works backwards to unearth evidence to support it (while ignoring evidence that doesn't) is quite simply not science. Hence, not publishable in scientific journals. Creationism (of the Flood Geology variety) was perfectly defensible several centuries ago: very little was known about the world, and some of what was known even looked like it might support the Flood. Creationism today is more or less indefensible: simply too much is known about the world to support it. That it persists, and even publishes its own "peer-reviewed scientific" journals, is a testament to the power of wishful thinking, wilful self-delusion and a stubborn refusal to accept the results of the scientific method. (This is becoming more like talk.origins; I think we need to wrap it up and agree to disagree.) --Plumbago 15:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is an example of closing your mind to what creationists actually say, because I didn't mention any conspiracy theory and creationists don't claim that there's a conspiracy. And they are most definitely not opposed to reality. You've made up your own mind about what creationism is instead of actually finding out what it is from the source. And you appear to have contradicted yourself. You claim that it is inherently unscientific, yet admit that centuries ago it was legitimate! If it is inherently unscientific, how could it ever have been legitimate? The rest is little more than a pathetic attempt to malign creationism with your unsubstantiated opinions. Philip J. Rayment 14:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(Reseting indent) I think it's way passed time to knock this one on the head. Once upon a time kangaroos were involved; we're now waaaay off base for improving this article. I started a reply to your last post (it's here). Anyway, it's been fun. --Plumbago 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(Reducing indent). Philip, the paragraph at the end of the Literalism section is trying to say that literalist websites go to great lengths to address questions raised by those who point to apparent weaknesses in the story in the light of modern knowledge. In other words, the websites don't answer their critics by saying simply "It is written!" - they take the criticism seriously, and try to find reasonable (in their eyes) answers. The idea that Noah's geography was not modern geography is an example - the answer is based on the biblical text, but the question springs from a discordance between the text and what is known today about geography and the distribution of species. PiCo 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the article makes it as clear as you do in that paragraph that they don't simply answer "it is written", but that's a separate issue.

Being hypothetical, it is possible that the animals had to come from around the world. It is also possible that they didn't. If they did, then how they did is a problem to be addressed. If they didn't, it's not even a real problem. Even though the article mentions that "literalists" have produced various answers to problems about the flood, the wording still presumes that this particular problem is a real problem that needs addressing.

Philip J. Rayment 09:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting though that the Bible makes no reference to Kangaroos or any marsupials, or creatures from the Americas. You would have thought one of them at least would have been worthy of note in the Bible? Candy 08:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Has no one yet read the update

to Project Vonbora? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.36.20.66 (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Can't see any update; other than that a presentation was made in Dec 2006. ^rossnixon 03:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

68.106.234.100's edits

I thought this needed reversion. A number of typos were uncorrected, a POV was introduced ([3], for instance), the only wikilink added was essentially a self-link, and the new section headers left the "Scrutiny" section in an incoherent state. The sources cited were very obsolete, dating from no later than 1959. Biblical archaeology has changed drastically over the past 48 years, and the consensus in it now represents a very different view of the data than was presented here. See the quote from Dever at the end of the Biblical archaeology article, for example. We really need more recent cites to be truly representative of the consensus in a rapidly changing field. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Noah's Ark in Yemen?

I've heard in a TV documentary that there is a place in Yemen where Noah's ark is believed to came to rest. Could someone verify this? CG 15:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. Orangemarlin 04:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a tourist trap. There's actually several supposed ark locations, created as mediaeval tourist traps, of which one or two survive. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To Codex and PiCo

STOP!!! The revert war is annoying. There are few times I will support Codex on any point, but this is one of them. Those statements in the main article do need citations. I personally believe them to be true, but they need citations. PiCo, if you believe them to be true, might I suggest a few minute search to find them. Orangemarlin 04:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Added para on biblical minimalism and the Ark

Some time ago we had a discussion on these pages about academic challenges to the documentary hypothesis. It was fascinating to read into the references that were given at the time (I owe thanks to rossnixon for providing the starting point), and as a result I've become converted to the idea that the DH isn't quite the be-all and end-all of contemporary bibilical scholarship. I've therefore renamed the section from "Documentary Hypothesis" to "Biblical scholarship" and added a paragrpah about the minimalist school and their findings on the Ark. (I've also added a brief sentence about the traditional Mosaic view, but without much detail). I've found it very hard to work out which of these two schools, the DH and the minimalists, actually represents the majority school in contemporary biblical scholarship - sources from both camps claim that they have the numbers, and I suspect that this means the game is a draw, but I have no way of reaching a definitive conclusion. Certainly both DH and minimalism are taught in all the best universities and seminaries. And equally certainly the minimalsts are far more controversial than ever the DH was, especially in Israel and within Orthodoxy, largely for political rather than scholarly reasons (they deny that the bible can be treated as a useful guide to history, a belief which is dynamite in the Middle East). Anyway, I welcome comments on this addition, which I regard as provisional at this stage. PiCo 05:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fictional ships

We have either to put in it Noah's Ark or to exclude from it Skíðblaðnir and Argo, or to create category "Ships in sacred texts". Otherwise, why is the Norse/Greek religion considered fiction and Abrahamic is not? 217.198.224.13 13:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Because of undue weight. Belief in the Norse / Greek religion today is insignificant. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that a reason for violating NPOV? By the way, in fr.wiki NA is in category "Bateau de fiction".217.198.224.13 13:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the NPOV policy that governs the English wikipedia, see WP:WEIGHT. We do consider numerically significant viewpoints in the world today, but not discarded ones like Norse / Greek mythology. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The low popularity of N/G religions could be an argument against 2nd offered variant, but it doesn't solve the whole problem: NA must be under Category:Ships, and there are different significant views about among real or fictional ones (wide-accepted science vs. literalists of Abr. religions).

WP:WEIGHT (and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Religion too) speaks of representation of viewpoints in articles, but the question of categories presses to choose (other variants are contradictive - contrary categories, - or shameful - no categories). So I offer either to count all theses ships as fictional until the mainstream science doubts it or to create category for ships in religion (better than "in sacred texts", because some of the sources could not be such) or ships, the real existence of which is disputed. Naturally significant viewpoint of Abr. religions should be taken into account, but not accepted as now. 217.198.224.13 13:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC) + 217.198.224.13 14:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest Category:Mythical ships, "myth" being used in the technical sense that does not denote unreality. This could contain Noah's Ark and the two examples given above, as well as some others. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate "mythical ships" because of the ambiguity of the various senses of myth, some of which are pov... we can find a more neutral phrase, the original poster's suggestion of "ships in religion" should suit the purpose well enough. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think "mythical ships" is the best compromise here. The WP:WEIGHT argument for excluding Noah's Ark is specious, as the majority of Christians today do not view the Old Testament as literal history; it is merely an insignificant minority who do. --Gene_poole 22:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That is far from the truth. It's not an insignificant minority at all as we have been through many times before. Mythical ships is just as pov as anything else trying to push the pov that it is mythical. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless the "truth" can be verified by multiple reliable third party sources it has no bearing on this or any other Wikipedia content discussion. There is, to date, no evidence that Noah's Ark has ever existed outside its mythical context, so that is how it should properly be categorised. --Gene_poole 00:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can show that something has changed since the last time we had this near-identical conversation on this talkpage, it remains an unacceptable POV-pushing to abuse the category system in this way. Have a look through the archives. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can show that Wikipedia policies concerning verifiability and NPOV have changed, it remains an unacceptably POV-pushing abuse of the category system to attempt to make an exception to the rule on the basis that a myth is of Judeao-Christian origins, as opposed to originating in some other cultural context. --Gene_poole 01:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, that's a new angle... Actually, it has been amply demonstrated numerous times already that the Judaeo-Christian viewpoint is not insignificant, and that it is regarded as canonical rather than mythical by every significant Church creed, perhaps you have not been following this page for long... You are attempting to call this view "insignificant" because you are pushing an agenda here... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice red herring. Wikipedia exists to document and classify all knowledge in a values-neutral manner (or as close to it as is practically achievable) - which by definition excludes the teachings of particular churches, cults, religions and belief systems. These may be noted within the article, but they simply cannot form any sort of categorisation benchmark. --Gene_poole 03:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And following your definition, the viewpoint of all atheists and scholars are excluded also. (To believe that there is no God is a belief system) There is no one who is values-neutral. The only thing that makes sense is to present a well rounded expose which outlines the positions of the major points of view (and even some minor points of view like atheism and scholarly review). Allenroyboy 05:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And also following his definition, all viewpoints that don't take this story literally are ipso facto not "Judaeo-Christian", regardless of the fact that most Jews and most Christians do not read it that way.

If "mythical" is POV despite being technically correct, then any category that assumes the ark really existed is POV as well. Even moreso because there's no external evidence of it, so there's no neutral sense in which that's a valid viewpoint. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Mythical" is most certainly POV, it is only tchnically correct according to one opinion, and iti s incorrect according to another opinion which is well represented in the published sources relevant to the topic that are impossible to dismiss or call insignificant. I agree with you that if there is a category that assumes the ark existed, it is equally POV and should be removed. For example, if there were a cat "historical ships" it would have to go, for the same reason. But wikipedia does not exist to be a vehicle for anti-religious bigots to attempt to further their aims of labelling what vast numbers of peopel around the world see God's Word, as "mythology", "Mythical", etc. That has historically been used (eg in Communist nations) as POLEMIC language because it is inteneded to serve only to weaken one belief system when attempting to substitute another belief system. Wikipedia does not do that; it is strictly NEUTRAL and anti-religious bigotry is forbidden by policy. If you want to cite your published sources that hold the opinion that it is mythology, you may do so, and I will also cite those who say it is not mythology. That's playing by the rules. But using categories to influence readers and make it appear that the "neutral" encyclopedia officially endorses such a view of the canon as "myths", it not going to fly this month any more than it did last month, because it is cutting below the belt, and is inherently POV-pushing. This has all been patiently explained here many, many times before, but it seems we now have some new accounts who seem oblivious of everything that has been explained on this page to the point of tedium, about how the churches' view of their own scripture is still highly significant today, and their canon has not yet been re-written by the bigots who seek to attack it even on this neutral ground ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no trouble with the fact that many Christians also think the Ark is mythology. But I do think that the only way to tell what numbers believe this or that is to go to the many polls {in the US} that have been done over the last decades. They generally indicate that about 1/2 of Christians believe the Ark real [~ 40% of the population]. About 1/2 who think it myth[~40% of the population]. And Atheists who think it's a myth (~20% of the population). My proposal was that all major positions be presented. And even minor positions such as atheism and non-christian positions. I understand that the US distribution of positions is different from the world distribution, so that ought to be factored in. Allenroyboy 13:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we please stop with the griping and sniping and general arguments over this?

• It belongs in the category fictional ships because it is generally believed to be a purely fictional vessel. Excluding it from this category would not be NPOV. Please look at the category regarding hoaxes, which includes many things which some people believe are real but many believe are hoaxes.
• It belongs in the category mythological ships (if it exists) because it is in a work of mythology and is derived from other works of mythology (namely Mesopotamian flood myths).

Quit arguing over whether or not it insults your values, because that's silly. Wikipedia cares about NPOV, and we can find dozens of sources that classify Noah's Ark as fictional. Therefore, it belongs in the category fictional ships, regardless of your personal point of view on whether or not it was real. It also probably belongs in the category ancient ships (if it exists) for the exact same reason. So please stop arguing semantics. Titanium Dragon 15:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Category: Mythological Ships

Because mythological ships are (arguably) somewhat distinct from fictional ships (because some people believe they are real due to their religious beliefs), I think this category should be created; generally, when people are looking for fictional ships, they're going to be looking for Captain Hook's ship, not Noah's Ark, and as such this category is a much more intuitive (and less controversial) classification - if people want to go and compare mythological vessels it makes sense for this category to exist. Of course, all this assumes there are enough ships for such a category; I'm not aware of any others offhand though I'd be willing to go look for other such articles if we agree to make this category. Titanium Dragon 15:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going to repeat this as many times as necessary until it finally starts to sink in. Labelling Noah's Ark a "fictional ship" or a "mythological ship" or any other synonym is an underhanded method of pushing a POV in violation of wikipedia's cornerstone NPOV policy. Yes, there are many who believe it was fictional. There are also many who believe it is not fictional. Wikipedia must be neutral without ttaking sides, and it will not endorse either of these views as long as I am around. With the mentality of the people who want wikipedia to endorse this view and proclaim the Bible to be fiction, I would expect their next step to be trying to somehow eliminate their opposition, so they can then claim their opposition doesn't exist -- that has always been their mentality throughout history. But history also shows that persecution never works, it almost always backfires and it is all the more disgusting when a supposedly neutral platform like wikipedia is utilized by these types for fighting wars against people's freedom of belief, and telling them what they are "supposed" to believe, instead of simply letting them make up their own minds. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going to repeat this as many times as necessary until it finally starts to sink in Please, do not. There is too much text here already. Labelling Noah's Ark a (..) "mythological ship" or (..) is an underhanded method of pushing a POV. What is NPOV violation in any way, it's different attitude to fictionality of Greek/Norse and Abrahamic religions. Is marking NA as fictional so? That's questionable, since considerable minority claims it to be real, but mainstream science doesn't. To be neutral is deeply connected with to be verifiable, and verifiability is in favour of fictionality. To leave NA outside of Fictional ships as it is now would be definitely NPOV violation in favour of Biblical literalists, so I suggest to create a category for ships in religion and mythology (originally thought to be real, but not proved anyhow). Probably we could let NA be also somewhere in "marginal researches". With the mentality of the people who want wikipedia to endorse this view and proclaim the Bible to be fiction, I would expect their next step to be trying to somehow eliminate their opposition Is that thought to be a personal attack? And are those French-speaking wikipedians, who placed NA (featured article) in fiction, such monsters? 217.198.224.13 20:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

But obviously the issue has not gone away and neither has the plot to have wikipedia endorse the view that categorizes Judaeo-Christian scripture as "fiction", so obviously I am going to have to keep pointing out that this is the most blatant POV pushing for as long as it continues. Come one, people. It is not endorsing the literalist position, by NOT labelling the Bible as fiction, someone here is not playing with a full deck in the logic department. What would be endorsing the literalist position, would be if we added a category like, say, "Historical ships". That would be every bit as much a POV violation, and I would protest that category for the same reason. What NEUTRALITY means is that we do not misuse categories in this way at all, and we do not add it to ANY POV categories that make a judgement for the reader about canonical texts. Play by the rules, that means go ahead and cite your sources who say it is fictional within the article itslf, just as other can cite their sources saying otherwise, and let the reader decide for themself what cited arguments he finds stronger. If you cannot play by the rules, don't try to bend them with biased categorizing that express objectionable and offensive POV's like "Fictional". That is an attack against all the religious creeds that proclaim scripture not to be fiction, and wikipedia cannot enter the business of telling people what books to trust and what books not to trust. "Fiction" should only be applied to those works that were clearly intended as fiction and that nobody disputes were intended as fiction. This is another category from fiction. Basic neutrality means simply the project does not take any position whatsoever on whether it is fact or fiction. If you still do not seem to understand, I will be more than happy to explain this principle at much greater length. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I rarely offer compromises in this type of discussion because I absolutely think that Noah's Ark is a myth, but I do have one for this intense discussion. Check out this article List of world's largest wooden ships. In the article, we defined Noah's Ark as "unconfirmed." It really is NPOV, and we can toss it in with other unconfirmed (but probably mythical) ships like the Chinese Treasure ships. Orangemarlin 02:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

CS, I'm tired of hearing you whine. Quite simply put, you've demonstrated time and again you don't know what Mythology is, and want every article written biased towards Creationism. Enough is enough. Every time I see you in an article like this, you're POV pushing. Every time. Maybe that's just because I only remember it when you do it, but its getting tired and boring. Mythology is a well-known, often used term. My high school had a class called mythology. My university has numerous classes on mythology. The article about Arbrahmic Mythology uses the word. Quite simply put, no.

It is a mytholgical ship because it shows up in mythology. Troy is a mythological city for the exact same reason. Atlantis is a mythological city for the same reason. Calling it anything else is stupid because that's what they are, even if they're real places. Titanium Dragon 10:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter a bit if you are "tired" of my pointing out the WP:NPOV policy, but I am going to remind you of it every time you try to violate it, every time, every time. If you aren't used to it by now, you probably never will be. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you aren't; what you're saying is that something which does not violate the WP:NPOV policy does violate the WP:NPOV policy because you don't understand what the word "Mythology" means, and for some bizzare reason feel that Judeo-Christian mythology should not be grouped with every other religious mythology, in spite of RSs doing exactly that. There's no reason to expect special treatment for your religion. Titanium Dragon 15:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Codex, don't be throwing Judeo into your argument. Truly, right wing Christian Fundamentalists are probably the only group that thinks the Bible isn't fiction. Well maybe fiction is harsh, I'd call it metaphor. Most Jews, save for a few way out there Orthodox (and I don't mean Orthodox in the meaning of one of the three branches of US Judaism, I mean the Jewish version of right wing fundamentalists), consider the context of what is being written in the Torah rather than the literal story. Noah's Ark is a metaphor for a whole number of moral codes. It's simply a myth, and to classify it otherwise is POV pushing. Orangemarlin 11:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to bring up this category over in the wikiproject on ships. Titanium Dragon 14:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where you bring it up. It is still an underhanded attempt to do an end-run around the cornerstone WP:NPOV, WP:ATT, and WP:VER policies, as well as several other policies, through the use of disputed, polemical "attack" categories. This proposed action is and will continue to be disputed, because it is unnecessarily pushing a POV, solely for the sake of pushing a POV, and attempting to force wikipedia into officially endorsing the school of thought that Holy Scripture is false. Cite your opinions if you can, but if you can't, do not use polemic and objectionable POV-expressing categories that cannot be cited. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be obvious at this point I'm ignoring you, because this has been gone over with you ad infinitum. I'm bringing it up with the relevant people, because A) this category should exist anyway and B) you're the only person who argues against any use of the word mythology every single time. I'm not using wikipedia to endorse my views, I'm improving wikipedia by categorizing things appropriately, using correct language, linking properly to other topics, and the like. I am not attempting to POV push, and as far as I can tell, it is you, who have consistantly argued with other editors by yourself on this topic, who is the problem. I gave notice here because I felt it would be "sneaky" not to inform the users of this page that I brought it up elsewhere. Titanium Dragon 15:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You aren't just ignoring me, you are ignoring and totally brushing off the significant viewpoint out there of many groups that the Ark is NOT mythological, and you are ignoring WP:NPOV and a great many other official policies. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, because no one holds that the Ark was not mythological. Read mythology. You simply don't know what the word means apparently. Titanium Dragon 16:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Codex, to flip it around, you're ignoring and totally brushing off objective evidence out there of many different sorts that point to the Ark BEING mythological. For the Ark story to be completely literally true, it's necessary to entirely overturn contemporary science, and to negate all other "Holy Scriptures" that happen to describe a different history. That seems rather a lot for one interpretation of a written record. Anyway, as Titanium Dragon has pointed out several times already, myth ≠ fiction. --Plumbago 16:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

From the mythology article:

A mythology is any body or cycle of myths – a narrative, oral tradition, or a popular belief or assumption, based on the legendary heroes of a culture. [1] Mythology sometimes involves supernatural events or characters to explain the nature of the universe and humanity.

I'm pretty certain that no worthwhile biblical scholar will say that this is not what the Bible is. Titanium Dragon 17:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It is most definitely disputed by significant groups, including the Pope and many others, whether "mythology" is an appropriate label for any part of Holy Scripture. Historically, it has been used as an attack word eg. in former Communism in an attempt to weaken people's beliefs, which should not be the role of Wikipedia. That it is synonymous with "fictional" according to every English dictionary and in the minds of nearly all English speakers is self-evident from this talk page, since only a few days ago the very same POV-pushers were trying to tag this as FICTIONAL SHIPS (see above). It has never been proven whether or not it is fictional, and it is still wideluy believed, do not fight your wars on NEUTRAL ground. I am not arguing for any cat abuse or POV pushing, like putting this in Category:Historical ships for instance. I am insisting that Wikipedia NOT endorse one viewpoint and attack the other viewpoint in violation of WP:NPOV. This is a most serious matter, I know I have repeated all these same points repeatedly but they do not go away just because you are tired of hearing them. You are just going to have to learn to make peace with that bee in your bonnet that ceaselessly drives you to attack other peoples' firm beliefs every chance you get. That approach isn't doing any good, and has never ever produced any good results. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What dictionaries, exactly, have mythology as a synonym for fictional? I'm looking in my dictionaries, and none of them have that meaning. Myth is a synonym for it, but not mythology, which is used exclusively to refer to what the Wikipedia article's intro states. There's a difference between the two words, and while all mythology involves not all myths, not all myths are mythology. For instance, the urban legend abbout the guy who strapped a JATO rocket to his car is a myth, but its not mythology. And the primary definition of myth most places I look is something along the lines of "a traditional or legendary story, especially ones involving deities". Noah's Ark would go in Mythological Ships along with the Argo and a number of other ships from various mythologies. You may be a fundamentalist Christian, and I don't care. That's irrelevant and immaterial. Your lack of understanding of what NPOV is, what the word mythology means, and apparent lack of desire to increase your knowledge is what is relevant. Saying "it has never been proved to be fictional" is silly, because the Flood has been proven to have never occured. That you don't accept that is irrelevant; however, I don't think putting it in Category: Fictional Ships is useful because that's not where I'd go to look up the Argo or Noah's Ark; I'd look in Category: Mythological Ships because they are from mythology, not from what is conventionally regarded as fiction. Titanium Dragon 20:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"Mythological" ≠ "Fictional", Pure and simple. CS, you need to get over your hypersensitivity on the subject. You're ranting.

Even fervent Christians such as J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis would agree that myth is in many ways even more true, and more powerful, than literal history. It's one of Tolkien's theses; his influential essay "On Fairy-Stories" is about precisely that. The fact that the Christian myth is also historically true is exactly what made Lewis a Christian in the first place. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

All dictionaries have the definition of mythological = fictional. That is the whole point of your attempting to put this category here. You are explicitly trying to suggest that it is fictional. You really aren't kidding anyone here but yourselves about that. Find a less ambiguous and offensive term to express what you are trying to say if it isn't that it is fictional, 'mythological' has a history of polemic usage and should not be applied to any of the world's existing major belief systems including CHristianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc..., only to discarded ones, as with any neutral encyclopedia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You're simply incorrect. Yes, all dictionaries give "fictional" as a second definition, but never as the first. That's just not its primary meaning. This is therefore a matter of you selecting which definition is most offensive to you and running with it. I suggest you assume good faith instead. I might as well read your word "neutral" above as meaning a pH of 7 and complain vociferously that you're making no sense. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the definition 'fictional' is the original significance of 'mythology' in the history of English, and still the way it is used commonly. It has been used often to attack religion. It is not neutral. If you are trying to suggest something about the Ark besides 'fictional' now, please find a more neutral (and less ambiguous) alternative that gets the same point across, like Ships in Religious Narratives. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"Myth" is not an English word in origin, but Ancient Greek, where it simply means "story". Its English sense as "fictional" did not appear until 1840. Earlier use of "mythology" in the sense of a body of myth is attested well before that. See [4].

But that's irrelevant. We're speaking modern English here, not the English of 160 years ago. I might as well complain that the original meaning of "fact" connoted an evil deed, so you shouldn't use it as you did in your post. Applying words only in their historical senses (even where you're correct about them) is absurd. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I refer you to the text at the top of Category:Mythology. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We are speaking modern English. It has been shown that most of the usages of myth or mythological on wikipedia are contrasted with 'historical' in the context of 'unhistorical'. There is no other implication in this context. The academic usage you speak of came about recently according to the history of the word in English. Myth has always meant fable, a story that didn't happen. Why try to deny that this is the POV you are trying to push, when its 'unhistoricity' has never been proven to the satisfaction of significant numbers of groups you are brushing off. Texts like the Quran, Hindu sacred texts etc. should also not be categorized as "mythology"; this cannot be done neutrally, because these are still adhered by large numbers in the world today, and noone has a right to discount a significant view of the world or insist that only theirs is the only correct one. I guess I will have to appeal by requesting further comments on the neutrality concerns of this categorisation. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your claim about the definition of "myth" is untrue, and I challenge you to provide a reference for it. I have already provided a reference for my opposite claim.

And yes, "myth" is contrasted with "history", but not in the same sense that "fictional" would be. A myth is the story told about an event as distinct from the bare facts about it. (One of those facts may be that the story is entirely fictional, but this is at least as often not the case.) All of its content may or may not be historical. For example, an oral transmission of an otherwise unrecorded conversation between two of the people involved is of necessity not historical, but it may well have actually happened and in more or less the terms received. The conversation then becomes part of the mythology of the event. That does not mean it's untrue -- although oral transmission being what it is, it may well be. The point is that "myth" applies to either case, because it's more about the story than the event as such, and is therefore about the meaning people find in it. To claim that a story is not mythological is therefore tantamount to claiming it has no meaning. That is surely not your intent. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

My intent is to make very clear to you that no matter what your semantics, this is "loaded" terminology that is very blatantly being used solely to push a POV and attack against a major world-view on the part of another world-view, and this is an unacceptable violation of neutrality. It is making wikipedia officially endorse the very same POV terminology that was enforced in Marxist countries. This 'consensus' was achieved by junta, and I am disputing this gross POV travesty and requesting further comment for a wider consensus. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Codex. Avoid loaded terms. Stick to common english usage for the benefit of the majority of readers who do not know the subtle academic usage. ^rossnixon 01:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

CS, our point is that you don't know what you're talking about. You simply repeat over and over again "this breaks NPOV", then proceed to make the same argument every single time. Its a mantra. You don't understand the NPOV policy, you don't understand what the words mean, or you deliberately misinterpret them. I'm not sure why, maybe its just that you're insecure, but you seem to have this severe problem with coming to grips with it. Quite simply put, you are paranoid and seem to think we're Communists (yes, with a capital C) or Evil Atheists or what have you. We're Wikipedia editors. You aren't asking for wider consensus; you simply argue against anything that doesn't fit your very narrow viewpoint and keep on insisting until others give up in frustration or eventually someone gets an admin involved and you get bannned from editing an article. I'm too lazy to be put off by someone like you though, and will eventually just deal with it via the adminstrative route if I get fed up enough with it.

Also, quit making references to communism. Reductio ad Hilterum is not a valid argument, and any intelligent individual should know it. Either you think it is a valid argument, or you are trying to manipulate people. Titanium Dragon 01:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is only the beginning. By the very same process you have railroade this POV in here, you could proceed to tag the Quran as "mythology", and every creed that anyone believes in, because that is basically what wikipedia is to you. A place where you think you can push your own POV on the world, and nobody else's matters, and you can try to make an example out of anyone who opposes you. I think the comparison to Marxist tactics is very apt, and this is the most disturbing trend that threatens the entire project. I plan to bring this to the attention of everyone down the line up to the very top until justice and neutrality are restored and Wikipedia can again claim to be a neutral place. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No, no one would tag the Quran that way. As I said -- and which you still do not seem to grasp -- what makes a mythology is the story. The Quran has very little in the way of story, as you'd discover if you'd actually read the thing. (I encourage you to. It's not very long, and no Christian's faith is thereby endangered as there's nothing particularly compelling about it. But it's best to be informed.) And you're wrong about Marxism. They didn't speak English, and did not denigrate religion in English terms.

Let's be honest though. When you say "neutral" what you really mean is that you want your POV to be hewn to everywhere. Is your POV truly neutral? Prove it. Tell me what would compel a person who had no reason to believe the Bible was sacred or factual in any way to believe that the Flood happened and that a man build a boat so he and breeding pairs of all the world's animals could escape it. Not one person who believed this story literally, of whom I've asked this, has answered me, ever. If taking it literally, or even giving any credence to taking it literally, reflects a neutral POV then it should be easy. So why has no one done it? And why won't you be able to? (You'll obviously have to appeal to authority, since I don't expect you to have the expertise on your own to give an answer. Just ensure that those you cite can be weighed equally with the very well supported consensus of mainstream sciences such as geology.)

By the way, go ahead and knock yourself out to get wider commentary. Just so long as you do it only at WP:RFC and not with spamming the user talk pages or project pages of those you know agree with you. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Another guideline that has not yet been mentioned is WP:CAT. 'Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.' ^rossnixon 02:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is self-evident. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No it is not, it is purely contentious and actively being disputed. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have, in fact, read WP: CAT, and did so before I made my proposal, because unlike some people I actually familiarize myself with Wikipedia standards and guidelines.

Noah’s Ark is by its very definition a mythological ship. Why? First off, by the defintion of the word it is mythological. Second, it appears in Jewish mythology. It is a part of Abrahamic mythology. The fact that these categories already exist, the fact that you don’t know what the word mythology means, the fact that many, many, many RSs call it such… well, frankly, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You just don’t. You have not bothered to look into Wikipedia’s preexisting standards for this, you haven’t bothered to read what the word mythology means, and you frankly are just being stubborn.

Quite simply put, your opinion is irrelevant because you’re wrong. It isn’t a violation of the NPOV policy, and there is massive precedent set on the issue of mythology not being a loaded word. The end. Titanium Dragon 16:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No one has yet shown that this categorization is uncontroversial. There are many user discussions that prove otherwise. Therefore, according to WP:CAT this category does not apply. ^rossnixon 04:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No one has shown this is categorization is controversial; reverted. Seriously, read mythology and abrahamic mythology. This has been dealt with elsewhere previously on Wikipedia, and the fact that categories such as this exist indicate they are quite acceptable. Titanium Dragon 04:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Look through this talk pages archives. It is obviously controversial. ^rossnixon 04:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That a number of editors objects on fallacious grounds doesn't constitute a controversy. Can you provide a valid source for your point? Can you source your claim that mythological means fictional? Can you source your claim that there is a controversy?

And for the record, looking through this Talk page suggests that even the notion that the Ark is a ship is controversial. We cannot simply allow mistaken editors to decide that something is controversial, as that would give individual editors far too great powers. -- Ec5618 08:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a more pertinent point, which is that the editors who complain about it have always been the same handful, and they simply repeat the same thing over and over. They don't show why it is considered controversial, nor why it is acceptable to have categories such as abrahamic mythology or jewish mythology, or why the greek gods can be referred to as being in mythology but not their god. Titanium Dragon 15:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories should be uncontroversial. Any controversy that exists should be documented in articles only. I had a similar dispute last year. I wanted to add Cat:Causes_of_Death to the Abortion article. I backed down when I was persuaded that WP:CAT meant that it had to be an uncontroversial categorization. See [[5]] ^rossnixon 01:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The category causes of death IS uncontroversial, and if you actually looked at what is in that category, you'd find (shockingly!) that murder isn't a cause of death :P The reason is fairly obvious, as the "causes of death" are things like liver failure. Titanium Dragon 10:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The ark is not a ship

The ancient document that defines the ark does not describe or label it as a ship. Those who have not read the description might assume it is described as a ship based on the rumors of others who have a POV or who have not taken the time to read the defining document themselves. Even if one does not read the account of Moses, they can check the dictionary. A ship has a means of propulsion (sails, an engine) and is meant for transport. An ark is a box or chest and is a place of protection, security, or refuge.

Interesting, looks like the Hebrew/Egyptian word used "tbh" means something more like "life preserver" see http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/what_shape/ark_box.htm ^rossnixon 04:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing like trying to split hairs. The Ark has often been called a barge by Creationists. It is its size that makes it comparable with ships, not its propulsion or lack there of. The structural design will be nearly the same whether you make a barge or ship of the Ark's dimensions. The URL mentioned above also discusses reasons for the dimension ratios of the Ark. Allenroyboy 05:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone reformatted my comments. I pointed out the Ark is, by the very definition, not a ship, in response to the attempt to categorize the Ark as a “mythical ship”. While it is true that the Ark shares size in common with a ship, or even a grand barge, it is not the lack of propulsion that makes the Ark distinctive. Obviously it is the nature of “refuge”, as distinct from “transport”, as in the case of a barge or ship. The refuge, according to the historical record, was necessary to save Noah from the wrath that was poured out on the earth--the wrath that the skeptics reject.

Clearly, to redefine (and hence reject or obscure) an object’s defining characteristic (namely “refuge”) by renaming or reclassifying it (as a transport vessel) is the ultimate coup. If everyone accepts “ship” then there is no “refuge”, which helps them set aside the whole proposition of wrath, which is the real reason this topic is of rabid interest to atheist and skeptics in the first place.

I'll agree with that. Allenroyboy 04:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC) (how did you post without your name attached???)

If the defining feature of a ship is purpose, and that purpose is transportation, then the USS Kitty Hawk isn't a ship either. (Being an aircraft carrier, its primary purpose is to fight - does this put it in the same category with Madison Square?)PiCo 07:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC) (Why did you post without your name attached?)

Wikipedia's definitions: "A ship is a large watercraft capable of deep water navigation" + "A watercraft is a vehicle, vessel or craft designed to move across (or through) water for pleasure, recreation, physical exercise, commerce, transport of people and goods, and military missions", so Noah's Ark should be counted as ship (and, by the way, it doesn't contradict purpose of transportation. Not known whereto, but transportation is obvious). 217.198.224.13 10:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is all incumbent upon an accurate definition, let me pull out my trusty Oxford English Dictionary, which is the most definitive work on the English language. Let's remember, that ark probably was a commonly used word in the 1500-1600's when English translations of the Bible were written, so the OED will be best at the etymology of a word. So, they define ark as: 3. The large covered floating vessel in which Noah was saved at the Deluge; hence fig. a place of refuge. This definition of the word, of course, was meant literally for Noah's Ark. It's usage in this form arose in around 1200 in England. However, by 1475 the word came to mean 4. transf. A ship, boat, or similar floating vessel. Although Ark's originally meaning was 1. A chest, box, coffer, close basket, or similar receptacle. I think we can conclusively argue that at the time the bible was translated into English, the translators were using the word as it was being used in the 15/16th centuries as a ship. Orangemarlin 03:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The word in question is not the English word that came thousands of years after Moses wrote of the two differently sized objects that saved Noah, and Moses as a baby. (Gen 6 and Ex 2)

Conclusively deciding that Moses knew that the future English word “ark” would mean “ship” thousands of years after he wrote in Hebrew (and that he fully approved of the future meaning) humorously proposes that Moses intended to write about the "ship of baby Moses" (that was the size of a basket) and the ship of the covenant (that held the ten commandments). Talk about a waste of materials! Since, as you seem to argue, Moses knew that the word "ark" would one day mean "ship" in English, he should have just used the Hebrew word for "ship" and the Hebrew word for "basket" instead, to eliminate this humorous disparity in the sizes of these ships!! (Or maybe we could just read the text and realize that Moses did not use the term in question to describe the size of two objects of greatly different size--he used other terms for that--but instead he used the same term to describe the same function and purpose that each had in common.)Katherin 04:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not Moses dear, Yahweh - Moses merely took dictation. And naturally, Yahweh knew exactly what the meanings of future words in future languages would be. 05:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating! You just threw Orangemarlin under the bus and ended his 25 year streak.Katherin 05:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

OM is a streaker?PiCo 06:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't streak. That would probably have me thrown in jail or cause massive strokes by anyone who saw me. Second, 25 year streak of what? Third, since I wasn't there, how do I presume to know what Moses meant to write, accidentally wrote, or didn't even write. All I have are the facts that my Hebrew is a bit rusty, I can only read the English version of the Torah which uses Ark as a place of refuge that floats on the water (a ship), and this discussion is a bit silly. Of course, if we take the literal meaning of ark, then maybe he built an mythical huge house on stilts to stay above the mythical (and physically impossible) flood. Orangemarlin 11:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This picture of streaking approaches vandalism.

You might actually sorta be close. Taking the literal meaning of the Hebrew word for ark (Gen 6, Ex 2), we could indeed propose a house on stilts, until we consult the terms of the text that describes the sizes of the objects, more akin to a ship or barge and a basket, but extraordinarily distinct (so much so that it required a distinct word, though “ship” and “basket” were available.) Understanding the terms precisely seems sorta reasonable, rather than silly.

The 25 year streak was in reference to your introductory statement in your email to Dr. Gillespie. I think you intimated (something along these lines) that you contacted him via your edu email (for credibility to a fellow scientists) and you assured the good Dr. Gillespie that you had not made a mistake in 25 years. But as a REAL scientist, you were interested to know if 1) Dr. Donbaz and he were also REAL scientists, and 2) as such, if they were aware of the public allegations that they had some part in Project Von Bora, and 3) if they would publicly deny having anything to do with it. By now we have a pretty good handle on the answers to your questions.Katherin 00:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ark defined by purpose

If we assume a priori that the ark is a ship then we will conclude that it is a ship and should be defined in like manner to a ship. The defining feature of a ship is not purpose. On the other hand the defining feature of the Ark is the purpose.

A ship has means of propulsion, means of both effecting navigation (such as a rudder) and evaluating progress (such as a compass), and is obviously for the purpose of transporting (for instance, aircraft to a location where they themselves cannot effectively reach, as in the Kitty Hawk.).

But the ark is not a ship and is not defined in the same manner as a ship. All attempts to define the ark by means other than the authoritative document, or by definitions or words that are contrary to the same, are simply intellectually dishonest.

There are two objects that are labeled as an “ark” by the authoritative document. One is very large (the ark of Noah) and one is very small (the ark of bulrushes for Moses). In both cases, there was a death sentence, and in both cases water was the means in which the death sentence would be carried out. Neither the ark of Noah or the Ark of Moses possessed a means of propulsion, or a means of navigation. Neither was for the purpose of transport.

In both cases, Noah and Moses deserved to be a part of the death that everyone else suffered, but they obtained mercy by being inside a place of refuge.

The word ark is devoid of size, propulsion, navigation, and transport. It is full of refuge, protection from a death sentence, and mercy.

Perhaps one can reject the idea of the wrath of God and of Pharaoh, and consider the two arks to only be props in a good story, but any attempt to change the definitions of the words used would leave someone exposed to the accusation of manipulating the story to set up a straw man. Just call it bunk if you like. But at least be intellectually diligent and honest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.170.143 (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

We speak about specific Noah's Ark here, not about arks at all, which of course are not obliged to be ships. However the NA according to Bible was large, it was capable of deep water navigation and it was watercraft ( floating construction, used for water transporting)... The definition of ship which Wiki uses is given above; NA matches it. So NA has to be called (along with "ark") a ship. If NA wasn't for purpose of transport, then whatfor? It had to bring Noah (+...) somewhere. 217.198.224.13 01:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

To define the meaning of the word for "ark", we can not ascribe to it our preconceived definition. To be intellectually honest, we must consult the text. The word for ark is used only two times. Noah’s ark and Moses ark. The only reason we understand the size of these two objects is because there is a fuller description of their dimensions. It is not the work “ark” that reveals size to us. But in contrast, the size of an object called a ship is understood by the sole word of “ship” to be very large.

Not only does the word “ark” fail to provide an understanding of its size, “ark” also does not allow navigation, transportation, or propulsion to be part of the description. Indeed all of these characteristics are conspicuously absent from the ark. In other words, all of the defining characteristics of a ship (size, transportation, navigation, and propulsion) are NOT defining elements of the word ark.

Neither Noah’s ark or Moses ark had any characteristics in common with a ship, on account of the nature of being an ark. The characteristics that they had by reason of being an ark are: they were a place of refuge from the sentence of death that each of them were subject to. Both of them received undeserved mercy and were sparred the death that fell to others.

A ship is a ship. An ark is an ark. They are unquestionably completely different. A careful reader will not make the mistake of using the terms interchangeably. An honest reader will not attempt to obscure the distinction.

Fascinating. Should just like to mention that there are not two but three arks mentioned in the Torah, the third being the Ark of the Covenant, which didn't even attempt to go seafaring. The Hebrew word means a chest, a box, a container. Getting back to Noah's chest, box or container, the word used to describe it (i.e., ark) and the directions given for its construction (x cubits long, y wide, z high), suggest that it was an elongated cube - that is, it had no hull, despite the painting by Mr Hicks at the top of the article. Such a shape is, of course, quite un-seaworthy, even un-riverworthy, (poor Moses!), hence the convention that it had a ship-shaped hull. I don't blame Mr Hi9cks at all for his un-Biblical hull. Perhaps we should regard the Ark as a composite creature, ship from the waist down, holy relic-box from the deck up. PiCo 04:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so. The easy mistake of "discovering" three arks is owed to the limits of translation. In English, the "ark" of the covenant appears to be the same word. It is not. In the original language it is a different word. Only two objects (the arks of Noah and Moses) are called an "ark", using the particular Hebrew word. It is of note that the Hebrew word for "ship" was not used and is not a synonym, for reasons that should be obvious.

Even the online Thesaurus "gets it" and does not list "ship" among the synonyms: adytum, ark, asylum, blowout center, cell, cloister, convent, cover, covert, defense, den, habitat, harbor, haunt, haven, hermitage, hideaway, hiding place, hole, hole up, ivory tower*, port, privacy, refuge, resort, retirement, safe house, safe place, sanctuary, seclusion, security, shelter, solitude [6]

Ark doesn't need to be a synonym for ship in order for Noah's Ark to be a ship. Here's the other possibility: ships and arks are two sets having Noah's Ark as common element. It is in the intersection of these sets, see intersection (set theory). P.S. Wiki community has already decided that NA is a vessel (see at the top of this FEATURED article), and NA as vessel in this sense is obviously ship (too big for a boat). 217.198.224.13 13:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So that's settled then: the OED says Noah's Ark was a ship, and set theory says so too - tho it seems we could settle on calling the Ark a vessel, just like USS Kitty Hawk (whose prime purpose is, of course, to protect these great United States and all freedom-loving persons, of whatever beliefs, who sail in her). PiCo 04:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(Reducing indent). I gather that all this kerfuffle over the nautical identity of the Ark is over which internal link should be made from the opening sentence of the article. The sentence defines the NA as a "vessel", which no one seems to object to. But there's a wikilink attached, and the question is, where should it point? Until I amended it just now, it pointed to boat, which is a bit ridiculous - go to that page and you see photos of little dinghies. I've redirected it to ship, which seems more appropriate in view of the "vessel"'s size. And the general feeling of this discussion has been that the Ark is not, after all, defined by its religious identity. So please, let's just leave it at "ship" now, ok? PiCo 03:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Reminder on Talk Page Guidelines

I just deleted two sections from the talk page - please see Talk Page Guidelines, espcially:

• Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. (My emphasis).

Thanks folks.

PiCo 06:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

PiCo, I consider your denial to be your highest compliment. Regrets, my love to Orangemarlin. Katherin 07:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Love to me eh? Aw shucks. I am actually refusing to contribute to these articles any more. I have no patience for the POV pushing of certain individuals (you are not included, at least right now), so I'm sitting all of these discussions out. However, I saw my name, so let me reply. Never heard from the dear doctor in Seattle. He probably thought I was a nutjob!!!!!! Orangemarlin 08:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a Dispute

Are any editors other than User:Codex Sinaiticus disputing the neutrality of this article? For the purposes of clarity, it would appropriate for CS not to reply much in this section and other editors to not incite him with personal attacks--ZayZayEM 02:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not dispute the article as such, but do dispute the same Category that Codex disputes. The categories are not in the main "body" of the article, but arguably may be regarded as part of the article. ^rossnixon 01:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Is your dispute on the basis of neutrality (not say, accuracy - valid dispute, but distinct from POV)--ZayZayEM 06:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to other deluge myths

The focus in the section Noah's_Ark#Other_deluge_accounts should be on the comparisons and contrasts as recorded by reliable sources (we don't want OR) between the Noah myth and these other myths. To me it seems there is too much msicelleneous repeating of what those myths said without tying itback tothe topic at hand: Noah's myth. There is an article on deluge (mythology), we don't need to summarise that entire article here--ZayZayEM 02:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I could do this:

• Move the "Ark in later Abrahamic traditions" section up to number 2 positionk, immediately following the Narrative section - this would give a chronological flow from the actual Genesis story through the later elaborations/commentaries etc.
• Roll the three sections "Biblical scholarship," "The ark under scrutiny," and "Other flood accounts" into one, possibly headed "The Ark under scrutiny", and dealing with post-17th century scholarship surrounding the Ark. The "flood accounts" subsection of that would be drastically shortened, and linked to some ercent theories advanced by the contemporary (i.e. currently alive and writing) scholars.
• That would leave the two sections on Biblical literalism and the modern-day search for the Ark as the final two sections of the article, possibly giving the overall article a better shape.

But, as all existing editors know, this article deals with a highly sensitive subject, any any major (and most minor) alterations tend to result in major battles. So I won't do anything without the ok of the overwhelming majority of editors. PiCo 02:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. This sounds like a more rational way of organizing the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. This is a more sensical way to organize the article. Titanium Dragon 10:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. However, let's not give too much undue weight to the modern-day search for the Ark. Talk about pseudo archeology or something. Orangemarlin 16:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you explain how there is (or can be) undue weight in the modern-day search for the Ark? Perhaps figures could be supplied to show the size/scope of organisations involved.--ZayZayEM 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Word choice is VERY important!

Word choice is very important.

When Csernica created this Category:Mythological ships, expressly contrived just for the purpose of getting the word "mythology" on the Noah's Ark page, he was trying to make a point that the word is somehow innocent. In order to do this, he also added the following articles to "Mythological ships": Mayflower Marie Celeste U.S.S. Constitution S.S. Edmund Fitzgerald. This attempt backfired, because the mythological cat was just as speedily removed from these articles by editors who protested that this category was erroneous as these ships were certainly NOT mythological (again, betokening the common dictionary understanding that English speakers have of the definition of 'mythology'. The category being applied to these historical ships undoubtedly must have seemed to them like a joke.)

Outside the specialised jargon employed by some schools of thought, to say something is "mythological" "mythical" or "a myth" in English as actually spoken by real people is to say it is pure B.S. that never existed. Every dictionary will back this up as one of the major definitions of the word in English, using words like 'fictitious, fictional), etc..

I would submit that the word 'Legendary' is a far more neutral compromise for what you are really trying to say. I would not object at all to a category 'Legendary ships' that included all of the above articles, as these are all truly legendary ships, including Noah's Ark.

Here's an example of how word choice is so crucially important in English writing to establish the exact nuance of what you are suggesting. Contrast the following:

1. "B.B. King is a legendary blues artist. The man became a legend in his own time."

This is normal English, nobody has any doubts about what is being expressed here.

Now, try this: 2. "B.B. King is a mythological blues artist. The man became a myth in his own time."

Anyone reading this will go HUH??? Did they just actually say that??? This is because the nuance of "myth" carries so much negative and offensive baggage that it is saying something far removed from what was intended. One of the first recorded usages of the word "myth" according to the OED dates to the 1840s, when a man was actually described as "becoming a myth in his own lifetime". This is because the man never came out of his own basement or appeared in public, so people joked that he was a "myth". It would not be accurate to say this about B.B. King. But it would be more accurate to call him a legend, or legendary. This term makes no judgement about whether the subject is historical or imaginary. So please, avoid using these words that seem calculated solely for their offensiveness-potential, and choose something more acceptable to everyone. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that your example is incorrect. In the context of 1, you're using legendary as meaning famous. Mythological has no such definition, so 2 has an entirely different meaning than 1. The only conclusion I can make from your example is that English isn't your first language.

Using the category Legendary Ships instead of Mythological Ships is confusing; we mean the latter, so calling it the former is silly. All but the Mayflower in your list of examples are obviously inappropriate; none of those ships are mythological. The Mayflower, conversely, IS mythological, especially among Christians who grew up believing in the whole fleeing from religious persecution schtick (which, while technically true, paints them as far more heroic than they are - there's a reason no one liked the Puritans, they weren't very nice people). Legendary is going to make people think the category is for FAMOUS ships, rather than ships in mythology. Titanium Dragon 15:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame you can't seem to make your point without smearing another entire group of people or pointing the finger at them, calling them "not very nice people". Also known as "demonizing". Let us all try to resist any attempt or opportunity we can find to push our POV on the world. I know this is especially hard for some of you who cannot sit still if they are not trying to convince others, but just let it be. You are not going to change anyone's firm beliefs. Smugly telling someone that everything they believe in is "mythology", and only to followers of certain selected beliefs at that, only makes wikipedia, a supposedly "neutral" project, look partisan and petty. It's not really accomplishing your goal though. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Quit avoiding the issue. You completely failed to address my point that legendary and mythological are not synonyms in your example and failed to adress why it wouldn't cause confusion. And I'm well aware I'm not going to convince a fundamentalist Christian that everything they know is wrong, and that wasn't my intention anyway. If I wanted to start a flame war with fundies, I'd probably go to Bible and put it into Category:Fictional Books. I'm not going to convince a fundamentalist Christian of anything useful regarding religion, because they are fundamentalists and by their very nature I'm not going to convince them. Especially not by using mere language; the whole similarity of deluge myths is likely far more damaging to their faith than any word choice.

My goal in this category is not to denegrade people's beliefs but to provide a useful category in which the Argo, the solar barge, and Noah's Ark can all happily reside. If I want to go looking for similar things, that's the category I'd look in/click on. Titanium Dragon 16:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So are we keeping the NPOV tag? I know that only one editor is in favor of that tag, so it should be removed. Orangemarlin 16:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Naglfar in that category is a ship that was said in Norse mythology to be built from the toenails of the dead. I don't know if anyone actually seriously believes this today, but I kind of doubt it could be too many. I haven't heard of any significant numbers who do. Same with everything else now in that category, they are all unquestionably mythological ships -- the only one that could be said to have anyone today maintaining its existence is Noah's Ark, making it distinct from those others. The only other one of those other ships that could have even feasibly existed in some form is Argo, the others aren't even concrete ships. I am of course aware that legendary has connotations of famous in my BB King example, but it is also the approprate term conventionally used for figures who may or may not have existed in some form, such as the "Legendary King Arthur". That avoids stating that he was pure myth, or that he was historical, either way he was legendary. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

According to my trusty Oxford English Dictionary, you have support and you don't have support. The main meaning is "Pertaining to or of the nature of a legend; connected or concerned with legends; celebrated or related in legend. legendary period, age: one of which the accounts are mostly of the nature of legends." Using this definition, I could support the change (although who's going to change all of the ships in the category). Unfortunately, one the new modern meanings of legendary is "Hence legendarily adv., according to legend or popular report; famously." Legendary, in my mind, means famous. In other words, it solves your issue, makes our issue worse. Orangemarlin 16:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Since category pages can't redirect like other pages, changing it would have to be done by bot after requesting the change, it's not a cat with many members anyway, so that's not a real issue. It sounds like I do have support from your dictionary for the meaning of legendary, but I don't quite follow the other part about also not having support. Do you mean because of its definition for the adverb 'legendarily'? What definition does it give for 'legend'? None of the definitions given for 'legendary' are independent of the definition of 'legend'. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So now you're insulting Norse mythology? Tsk. Of course, I expected no better. And claiming Noah's Ark is more feasible than Naglfar is comical. In fact, I'd say I'd have an easier time building Naglfar than flooding the entire surface of the planet. And you'd be surprised at how many people think the Trojan War happened as per Greek mythology. In any event, though, the veracity of these tales is totally irrelevant; what is relevant is that they're all a part of various mythologies. It is also worth noting that King Arthur's page refers to him as a mythological king, not a legendary one. And I was pointing out your example was a horrible one precisely because it was blatently wrong. Fundamentally, you don't know what mythological means, and you don't know what legendary means, so I'm not sure why you're even arguing other than to argue. Titanium Dragon 21:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Because what you are doing is not only POV pushing, but you are trying to get the Wikipedia project involved in the game of declaring what religious texts are "mythology" and what ones aren't, which is a very dangerous game that I'm not sure is intended to be part of Wikipedia's scope. It seems to me that the very point of having all of these NPOV and neutrality policies in the first place is to prevent just this sort of POV attack on one set of religious doctrines. Norse mythology is not followed in the world anymore, or at least not in the significant numbers that Christianity is. You're just going to have to accept that reality. The two are not comparable. The NPOV policy bid us to take all significant views into account, but it does not require us to consider POVs that were significant in the year 1000 and no longer are. All major encyclopedias entries for "mythology" discuss dead religions like Norse and Greek and Roman, ones that are no longer dominant anywhere on Earth. Note they generally do not discuss any of today's world religions, that large numbers of people believe now, under "mythology", because that would be blatantly partisan. That is the realm of Comparative Religion, not mythology. I actually took a College course on Comparative Religion in the 80s, practically the first thing they covered was what are the major religions practised in the world today, and how we should not call any of them "mythologies" just because we don't believe in them, because that is insulting or patronizing. These religions are: Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. You and others here may have a personal bone to pick with one of these that cause you to fling attacks at it continually, and its not hard to guess which one, because that is what attracts you to this article. But calling it "mythology" is calling it by a name that has signified for centuries "a dead religion that is not widely believed anymore". And its definitely premature to make that call on any of the world religions of today, much as you might like to push. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So obviously every other wikipedia editor is wrong. Obviously Abrahamic Mythology needs to be renamed. Quite frankly, it seems like this issue has been addressed before, and it seems like the definition used by Wikipedia is not your definition, and indeed, that this debate has played out before and they decided to use the word. No, mythology does NOT imply a dead religion. And WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not politically correct anyway; we use correct terminology. Mythological is correct and accurate in describing Noah's Ark. Moreover, your claims of that class are suspect as you've already insulted the poor, innocent toenail ship. What would the few thousand members of that religion say?

Quite simply put, I don't see any valid reason for an objection to this category. Mythology is a well-known, often-used term, and is quite accurate. It is used for other articles on Wikipedia, including other articles about the same religion. It seems unlikely to me that there's a massive conspiracy on Wikipedia against Christianity, as a fairly large number of editors on Wikipedia are, in fact, Christian. If this was such a problem, these articles would not use the words, and it'd be avoided. Titanium Dragon 00:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Since word choice matters, back to my OED (no I don't have the $6000 leather bound, gold embossed set on my desk, but I do have the $300 annual subscription). The current definition of legend is "An unauthentic or non-historical story, esp. one handed down by tradition from early times and popularly regarded as historical." Now this might work, but I can't believe you'd actually agree Codex. By the way, a newer definition of the word is: "famous or notorious only for a short period of time, within a limited social circle, or in one's own estimation." The Legend of Noah's Ark might work for me, but I don't see where this is any different than the Myth of Noah's Ark. Orangemarlin 22:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Titanium, if you want people to believe that your intent ISN'T to attack religion, you probably should refrain from attacking "fundies" on the talk page. Frankly, you're convincing me that Codex has a point. And what's wrong with "legendary"? Carlo 01:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Several of us are not very happy with fundies. It doesn't mean we can't think, be neutral or write well. There isn't one iota of evidence of a global flood. Whether there was a small boat that sailed out to the Black Sea or another big body of water with a couple of dogs and cats is of no interest to me. But when we try to make Noah's Ark out to be a real ship with a real flood--I draw the line. As a discussion of a biblical myth, this article does not bother me. It's actually a well written and researched article. Orangemarlin 01:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we ought to make it out to be a real flood either - note that I am in no wise arguing that we should. But part of my anxiety is because of a certain user I recall in 2005 who stirred up a much bigger uproar attempting to add "mythology" cats to a wide range of articles including not just Noah, but also even Death and Resurrection of Jesus, Virgin birth, and Transubstantiation. I think we should draw the line at texts that are believed by significant numbers of people today, but I'm honestly not sure if 1000 people who seriously believe in the Eddas is comparably significant, since I haven't seen much information on how organized their community is. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I edit the Jesus as a myth article, since I think he's a myth too. But let's not go there!!!! Orangemarlin 01:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Jesus as myth is an article about a controversial opinion, not wikipedia endorsing that opinion. The implication of "myth" in that case seems to be referring to the idea of some that Jesus did not actually exist. This is rejected by all those who hold that Jesus did exist. The controversy over whether Noah existed means there are also a variety of opinions on this question. Remember that Islam regards him as a real prophet. There are even those who believe he appears in Hinduism as Manu, who is regarded as a real prophet in that faith. There are many significant groups holding Noah to have been a real person who built a ship, just as there are also many who regard him as a myth and a fairy story. This is why it just seems opinionated to favor one side of the question and decide that what various peoples actively believe today is now in the realm of "mythology", so we have to inform them accordingly. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't care for fundamentalists, either. But when somebody drags an attack on fundies into a discussion about the wording of an article, it makes me wonder if their need for a certain wording isn't connected to such an attack - since they seem to have such a connection in their own head, at least judging from their mode of argument. Carlo 03:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The antichristian bias of Orangemarlin, and Titanim Dragon just oozes out of their words and drips down the screen. And they think they are neutral! Stalin was more neutral. I have no problem with their antichristain bais, but they should at least acknowledge their bias and stop pretending. No one is unbiased. And the redefining of mythology by wikipaedia is a joke. Neutral! Role over Hitler. Allenroyboy 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I take offense at those remarks! Hitler was, after all, a Christian. You guys need to take credit for your genocidal maniacs; much as I want him, he's all yours.

More seriously, no. Quite simply put, yes, I don't like religion. Blah blah blah. That's irrelevant, as I've pointed out many times before. My goal is not to excise all religious articles or people from Wikipedia. In any event, Codex is a fundamentalist Christian who has done this numerous times before, and his original post in this section he shows his lack of grip over the English language. I'm not really sure why you feel like censuring me.

I made the category because it was very strange that something of the sort didn't exist. Someone tried putting Noah's Ark in fictional ships, which, while accurate, is probably not the best category for it and the Argo and everyone's favorite ship made out of toenails. Naming the category Legendary Ships is intentionally obsfucating; Mythological Ships means the same thing, excludes famous ships, and is clearer about what it is. Titanium Dragon 19:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, out of curiousity, do you really think erasing people from photographs after executing them, committing the Haulocaust, and sending 20,000,000 to the gulags is comparable to the creation of Category:Mythological Ships? Because I'm fairly certain most reasonable people would agree they aren't at all on the same scale. Titanium Dragon 00:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Allenroyboy, I would suggest you take a long, hard read of WP:CIVIL. Orangemarlin 00:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Compromise: Mythological → Legendary

This seems to be appropriate with wiki-standards. C.f Category:Legendary_creatures. This eventually leads back to categories such as Categories: Folklore | Traditions | Mythography | Oral tradition--ZayZayEM 01:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC) SEE BACKFLIP

I disagree with the suggestion of legendary. To me it means the same as mythological, despite it's additional modern "famous" meaning. My suggestion would be to have a category something like Famous ships in literature or something similar. That way there is no pro or anti historicity POV implied. ^rossnixon 02:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggestion of ''legendary''. To me it means the same as mythological,

So then why not change it? If it's the same thing to you, and NOT the same thing to those objecting, why not change it? Carlo 03:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeat Carlo's comment. If it means the same, what is the problem with changing it. I've given a valid reason for changing it (removes dispute; brings in line with other categories). --ZayZayEM 05:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Legendary and mythical are not the same. Legendary stories could have been true, but there is no strong evidence to support them. For example, King Arthur could have been a real person, but maybe not. Mythical stories have supernatural elements such as gods intervening in human activities and people having super human strength or knowledge or size or abilities. For example, the Santa Claus myth which is loosely based on the legend of Saint Nicholas of Myra Turkey. Greensburger 05:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

The deluge (mythology) is common enough that a Noahic figure is as likely as King Arthur. Some might suggest more so due to widespread mythology.--ZayZayEM 05:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Literature" is not appropriate. Noah persisted for a significant period in oral tradition.--ZayZayEM 05:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Aaargh. I'm Backflipping. Please see Category:Mythology:

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

"Mythology" in wikipedia is being used to refer to "stories of a particular culture that it believes to be true and which feature a specific religious or belief system." Noah's myth is certainly of a highly religious nature. Perhaps Mythological Ships could be made a subcat of Legendary ships (of which I thing The Flying Dutchman might be better placed). --ZayZayEM 06:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; some of us actually went through and looked at this stuff. :\ I don't mind Category:Legendary Ships but I think Category:Mythological Ships is clearer and less likely to confuse people as to what belongs in the category. Either is fine with me in the end, and having Mythological Ships as a subcategory of legendary ships is fine, I just prefer the latter as apparently the person who came up with the idea of changing the names of the categories in the first place doesn't understand what legendary and mythological mean, and has consistantly fought to keep the word mythology off the page irrationally. Titanium Dragon 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

24th Century BC

Granted that there may be a date that can be ascertained for this from various traditions, to place it in the 24th Century BC is to ignore most of them in favor of only one, and one of rather late coinage at that. James Ussher, who calculated the 4004 BC date for the Creation, was a 17th Century Anglican bishop. If his date is well-known, it's primarily because an edition of the KJV used it to annotate Gen. 1. However, there are numerous other traditions as to the year of Creation that long predate Ussher's estimate. See Anno Mundi for a summary. There is no NPOV reason to favor this date over the others. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Most calculations are within the range 2300 to 2500 BC. There is discussion of the error in the traditional (2nd century AD) Jewish dating of the Flood (2105 BC) here [7] ^rossnixon 03:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Site's broken apparently, so I couldn't get to the page. But here's yet another theory supporting the earlier Byzantine date: [8]. Big, fat, hairy deal. These are all exercises in eisegesis, and it would be absurd to take any of them as absolutely correct. We'd be better off saying 30th Century BC, which is when the Mesopotamian river flood that likely inspired the Ark story probably happened. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked your site, an exercise in fantasy, self-described as "which probably is wrong as well". I would rather trust an organisation that has studied this more than anyone else. ^rossnixon 02:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If that's your standard, then your average university geology or anthropology department has the answersingenesis folks beat any day of the week. But this isn't an issue of whom you personally trust. That's your POV. We can't use you as a basis for categorizing this article. I'm not advocating any century. I'm saying it shouldn't be put into one of those categories at all.TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll expand. I trust them because they are a WP:RS on this subject. ^rossnixon 02:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The date appears disputed amongst various WP:RS. Please be wary of placing undue weight on a POV.--ZayZayEM 05:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll go further than that and say that any such organization is not a reliable source by its very nature. It's an opinion rather than a fact anyway, and should not be used as a basis for categorization. It's really not even worth a discussion in the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

CS, these threats are tiresome, and I have trouble believing that ArbCom would involve itself in a content dispute where there has been no serious wrongdoing on any side. Regardless, this is very premature until the RfC has run its course. The article will still be here next week should the comments elicited tend your way. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Folks, this just a run-of-the mill content dispute of a sort that happens all the time. Suggest trying to resolve this civilly. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be nice, but not likely given Codex' militancy. •Jim62sch• 13:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

revised doc hyp. section as biblical scholarship (new title)

I've ervised the documentary hypothesis section and renamed it biblical scholarship, as it includes biblical minimalist idea. I don't regard this as final, and would be grateful for ideas and help. (This re-write is the result of a discussion which appears above on this talk page, headed, I think, Other Deuluge Stories - I'll get around to revising the Deluge section later, but right now I'm tierd and need a coffee). PiCo 06:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I believe that per WP:A and WP:NPOV, the different points of view need to be clearly attributed. The phrase "documentary hypothesis" clearly identifies and neutrally describes a particular theory and POV, and hence represents a clear attribution. However, the phrase "Biblical scholarship", appears to have highly positive connotations without actually having any particularity of description. It could just as well be applied to religiously-based scholarship as much as any other kind of scholarship. Using the phrase "Biblical Scholars" to describe only the academic point of view would be a bit like using the word "educators" to refer only to supporters of phonics as distinct from Whole language or using the word "statesmen" to refer only to members of the United States Democratic Party as distinct from the Republican Party. Such language would appear to represent endorsement rather than a description of the point of view involved. The fact that group insiders may use such terminology -- members of the the Democratic party may in fact consider only themselves to be "statesmen" and might use the term to refer to Democrats as a matter of course -- does not make it a neutral term of attribution so far as the general public is concerned. This is an encyclopedia for the general public and needs to use language accordingly. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Shirahadasha. The terms "biblical scholarship" and "biblical scholars" aren't meant to describe only the DH. In fact the section moves from the DH to describe recent Minimalist theories, which reject key Wellhausian points. I'll try to re-draft the section to make this clearer. As for a religious vs. academic approach to scripture, this isn't really the aim of this section, which is meant to describe the academic challenge to religion which developed in Europe from the Renaissance onward. The religious world-view belongs in the next section, on Biblical literalism - the title of that section could perhaps be changed to something like "The Ark and Tradition" to take that in. PiCo 05:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Let the games based on the misuse of semantics begin. Shirahadasha, nothing was implied by either term, why then do you infer? •Jim62sch• 13:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems we have a problem of specificity here. On the one hand,PiCo very reasonably points out that "Documentary Hypothesis" is too specific -- it encompasseses only a single approach within a range of scholarship, and an appropriate term should be more inclusive. On the other hand, "Biblical Scholarship" doesn't seem to be specific enough -- the term denotes any kind of scholarship from whatever point of view, but a specific type of scholarship and POV is being described. Something in between seems to be called for. "Critical scholarship" comes to mind, although I have no investment in any particular term. Best, --Shirahadasha 13:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, "critical" has its own potential negative connotations, at least in the vernacular. Academically, critical is absolutely correct, but like biblical it runs afoul of the superficial comprehension skills of the hoi polloi. •Jim62sch• 20:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "academic scholarship"? I understand it would be desirable to avoid coining a neoligism. By all means, propose something else if there is a better alternative. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just "Scholarship"? But looking over what I wrote above, I see I mis-stated one point: the aim of the part of the article encompassing "The Ark under scrutiny" and "Scholarship (with whatever adjective attached) and the Ark" is to describe the secular (not necessarily academic) challenge to a literal belief in the Ark, a challenge which began with the Enlightenment and carried on through the 19th century into the present day. What Shiradahasha is talking about, if I understand correctly, is the modern erligious reaction to this challenge - specifically religious scholars who hold that the Torah was indeed written by Moses under divine inspiration. Shira, could you confirm that this is what you mean? In the overall structure of the article, that point belongs in the final section of the article, which at the moment is devoted to technical questions of building and sailing the vessel, but room could be made. PiCo 04:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Connotations of the word mythology

It does seem odd that the battle is not being waged with other attempts to classify indisputably real ships as "mythological." Also, the word mythological does have connotations, regardless of the intended denotation. Is there no other word beside mythological or legendary that could be used on not only Noah's ark, but also for the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article, and the likes?

Couldn't the battle to have this category be waged on an article of a ship that are almost universally accepted as being real first, and then taken to the Noah's Ark article, which is clearly a more emotionally charged (to some) issue? E.g., get the SS Edmund Fitzgerald classified in this category first, and then bring the battle to this page. This would certainly make the case that the classification is not a POV push easier to digest (not that my digesting it matters). ImprobabilityDrive 19:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.. Maybe "Ships in folklore"? One could quite feasibly make the case that these are all ships in folklore, from Mayflower to Noah's Ark to Naglfar. And I would have no problem with it, after all the word "folklore" is originally a good native equivalent to the Latinate "popular science". Folklore can be true or false, historical or unhistorical. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? •Jim62sch• 20:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he is saying that if "mythological" is as uncontroversial as its proponents claim, and truly does not imply unhistoricity, then he is challenging you to get the cat successfully added to the article of a ship whose existence is not in question beforehand, before trying to add it here where the existence of the ship is more controversial. He suggests the SS Edmind Fizgerald article, although Mayflower might actually be your strongest case - and even there, you'd probably need some awfully persuasive arguments to convince its editors that the Mayflower is mythological, by wikipedia's definition. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

But Noah's Ark *isn't* indisputably real, as you imply. That's kind of the point. Now, if you wanted to argue about, say, ships mentioned in Herodotus' account of the Persian War, a mixture of history and myth, you might have a point. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some kind of disconnect between what I actually wrote above, and what you thought you read. I didn't just say or imply that Noah's Ark is "indisputably real"; on the contrary, I meant this article when I said "here where the existence of the ship is more controversial". That was also my point, and I think the point of the original poster: since this definitely *isn't* indisputably real, first why don't you try "mythological" on another ship that is indisputably real, like SS Edmund Fitzgerald, or the Mayflower and see how far that gets... So, are we all reading this the same way yet? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was replying to the original poster, and should have unindented. My point is that few real ships are significantly central to myths. The Ark is central to the ark myth in a way the Mayflower is not central to the pseudohistrorical American myth of the Pilgrims. Also, the Mayflower is not necessarily part of a myth, because theres completely factual, non mythical things that could be said about it. The myths are unlikely to even be a primary focus of it.

In short, the whole thing boils down to ridiculousness along the lines of "Since you can't get the mthological ships category applied to things that have a very slight mythological component, how dare you apply it to an unambiguously mythological one. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Frankly, I think the real issue is that Christianity is the major religion of Wikipedia editors, and the only notable ship which appears in Christian mythology is Noah's Ark. While a few others appear, they aren't notable in the way the Ark is, and are simply used as a part of the narrative; Job had a boat but it wasn't notable, several saints were associated with boats but the boats aren't worthy of their own articles. As such, it is only other religions' ships which would have their own articles, and many religions simply aren't as fleshed out as Christianity due to the large number of Christian editors. So only a small number of mythological ships have Wikipedia articles. There are probably more which deserve them but haven't gotten them for one reason or another.

The real problem may fundamentally stem from the fact that ships aren't often notable in and of themselves, so historical ships which have mostly passed into mythology simply don't have articles at all because there isn't enough information on them. There's also the people distinguishing between the legendary ships (which are mythological, but have their own category and consists mostly of ghost ships) and the mythological ships. Not a bad thing, but it does make the category smaller and also eliminates a lot of ships that would go in this category from it. Titanium Dragon 09:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of you understand what I meant. The existence of Noah's Ark is far from indisputable. I agree that the Mayflower would be a more well-known example of a ship whose historicity is beyond dispute to most, (unlike Noah's ark, which, I think, reasonable people can form their own opinions, and its actually existence is not established beyond a reasonable doubt.) Whether or not it is intended, I think mythological has connotations of "fictional." And I have read that this is not what is intended. But even though the implication of fictional is not intended, I think it would be a hard sell on ships which have more well established historicity. However, if the classification were successfully applied to other ships, say the Mayflower, SS Edmund Fitzgerald, and so on, this would bolster the case. NOTE: I have not read much on the historicity of Noah's Ark. If there is some evidence that it existed outside of religious accounts, I am unaware. My comments are only on the point that mythological is not intended to imply fictional, and if this is true, I think that if the classification is successfully applied to ships whose existence is more well established would strengthen the argument.

Another note, the argument that Noah's Ark would be difficult or impossible to build has some merit, but if we did not still have the Egyptian pyramids, I think some reasonable people would also doubt that they ever existed. Fortunately, they were made from Stone and not, as alleged, wood and pitch. ImprobabilityDrive 00:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, any religious text or folk tale counts as myth. The tale of Noah's Ark has no independent existance outside of these. Hence it is unambiguously mythological. Your arguement is that things that have only a very slight and vague mythological component (one would be hard pressed to identify actual mythical stories about the Mayflower, or to demonstrate the poetry about the Edmund Fitzgerald actually counted as myth), while also having a very strong, unambiguous, and undisputed historical component.

In short, your proposed test is unreasonable. Now, Paul Revere as myth, or The Boston Massacre as myth might be supportable, and possibly should have a myths tag.

However, this doesn't matter, really, because Noah's Ark is unambiguously myth. What definition of myth would exclude it? Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Opps, was this already resolved? (I have not done any editing of the article regarding [[Category:Mythological Ships]]). I wouldn't care if it were placed in [[Category:ships]], to answer ZayZayEM question in his edit comment. But I suppose that this would imply that it were real (so, since I don't have evidence of this, I won't put it in [[Category:ships]]). The hisoricity of Noah's Ark is clearly in dispute, so I am not sure what to do. I won't revert just yet (maybe never), but I do think the fact that the category [[Category:Mythological Ships]] implies that Noah's Ark is indisputably fictional. Is this what is intended? Maybe a category for ships whose historicity is disputed would be a better category. Not sure how many ships would qualify, perhaps if there are articles on "ships mentioned in Herodotus' account," they would qualify. ImprobabilityDrive 01:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I concur with Adam, after consulting with a dictionary. I suppose I should have done that before starting this thread. My apologies. Anyway, to make clear, I have not done any editing of the article regarding [[Category:Mythological Ships]]. ImprobabilityDrive 01:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I still like Famous ships in literature or something similar, as a possible solution. I think only ZayzayEM commented on this so far. Any other thoughts are welcome! ^rossnixon 02:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the alternative category name, Famous ships in literature, too--but what I like probably doesn't carry much weight. Upon further investigation, I think the discussion needs to be taken somewhere else, specifically, Category_talk:Mythological_ships, or perhaps someone needs to research how to dispute the existence of the category itself. I tried a search for how to do this, but came up empty. Since I am now convinced that it probably does apply to this article, I won't put any more effort into it. The [[Category:Mythological Ships]] category exists, and even though there might be a perception that [[Category:Mythological Ships]] is unintentionally POV by implying fictionalized, the dictionary really doesn't support this. Even so, you might be able to make your case on the Mythological ships talk page, or by raising the point through some administrative process. Based on Adam's prompting, I have to agree that if the category exists, Noah's Ark belongs to it, at least with my level of understanding. It doesn't appear as though the category was created to attack this article, either, I must say. ImprobabilityDrive 03:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with renaming the category, as long as a reasonable alternative phrasing could be found. Or, alternatively, simply populating the category with other ships mentioned in religious texts - I'm sure that there's a few in Shinto, Hinduism, etc. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• As a Christian I have no problem with describing this as part of Christian mythology. The fact that some people assume that myth = false is not our problem; actually as part of our mission to inform we should help them find out what the correct meaning actually is. Regardless, Wikipedia does not exist to fix external problems and is not censored to avoid offending minorities within any particular religious denomination. Category:Mythical ships fits precisely, and unquestionably applies to the Ark as much as to the Argo. We could propose renaming the category to mythological ships, but I don't think that changes anything. We could also propose deleting the category, since it has very few potential members. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. See Category_talk:Mythological_ships ^rossnixon 02:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stay on topic

Please discuss the connotations of the "Mythological" categories with Wikipedia:Wikiproject Mythology. Please do not use this article as a test. To me that really violates WP:POINT. As the Mythology categorisation stands, the Ark belongs in it both as an Abrahamic myth and a mythological ship (the adjective mythological appears to stand favour to mythic) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 11:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Re the vernacular use of myth to mean false: if the vulgus wish to perceive the word solely in that particular definition, we can try to educate them, but if they refuse to be educated it is their problem, not ours. If this sounds elitist, so be it. Everyone has the capacity to learn the meanings of words, the shades of difference, the semantics of certain discplines and so forth; failure to learn these distinctions speaks more to unwillingness than to ability. •Jim62sch• 14:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the use of the term mythology in the context of Noah's Ark. Codex appears to have a wilful intent to interpret this as some kind of backhanded insult to religion by academics. This is not new and we have been through this whole issue before, over a year ago (Talk:Mythology/archive2#False claims about sources and Talk:Mythology/archive3#Article_is_now_locked). This interpretation of mythology=false is far more POV than the academic usage which is backed up by the primary definition in the OED. David D. (Talk) 16:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverts by Jim62sch

Jim62sch, you reverted to what I think is less accurate wording, and I'll try to explain why here.

The story is contained in the Hebrew Torah, Christian Old Testament's book of Genesis, chapters 6 to 9 and in the Quran.

versus

Religious accounts are contained in the Hebrew Torah, Christian Old Testament's book of Genesis, chapters 6 to 9 and in the Quran.

In your revert, you asked, in your comment, "religious accounts as opposed to what?" Answer: Religious accounts as opposed to secular accounts. All of the accounts listed are religious accounts.

Next, you reverted my changing of the following:

Indeed, the deluge myth is one of the most common folk stories throughout the world.

to

Similar deluge myths are the subject of folk stories throughout the world.

Unless you can establish that sundry deluge myths are referring to the same event, or have common historical origin, I do not think it is accurate to say "the deluge myth." But if you can establish it, I think a reference to a reliable source is called for, since this would be an extraordinary claim. I hope you don't mind, but I undid your revert. ImprobabilityDrive 00:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The use of The deluge myth is applicable. That article refers to "The story of a Great Flood sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution". These myths have a very high correlation to a similar story with a similar setting and a similar plot. "deluge myth" is generic enough to not eb implicitly say these are the exact same story.--ZayZayEM 00:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, the article content can indicate that various scholars believe that the narrative is related to other stories and the group form a certain pattern. No-one's questioning that article content should say this in appropriate sections if well-sourced. But what we believe ourselves about the matter is irrelevant -- we're simply not in the business of establishing whether claims of correlations etc. are true, so it just doesn't matter whether we believe they are or not. Mythologists say that "Similar deluge myths are the subject of folk stories throughout the world." So far as we're concerned, this is simply one of the stories that mythologists tell. Their story is relevant to the article content so it deserves to be put in the article, but so far as we're concerned it's just a story. We certainly can't endorse this story as true. To reflect this approach, the WP:NPOV and attribution policies lead to the sentence saying something like "According to (insert name of well-known mythologist here), similar narratives are the subject of folk stories throughout the world, and are called deluge myths. And the sentence should be followed by a footnote referencing a work by (well-known mythologist). This use of language accurately tells and attributes mythologists' story as it relates to the article content, without any claim that Wikipedia regards it as true. And lose that "indeed".It's a smoking gun and a dead giveaway of a WP:NPOV violation, Wikipedia simply shouldn't contain language endorsing a truth claim like that, especially in the presence of a POV dispute. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Saying the deluge myth is misleading; current scholarship suggests that while Noah's Ark and many of the other mesopotamian flood myths have a common origin, deluge myths in general do not and are simply common because many humans live near rivers which flood fairly often into the fertile floodplains. Titanium Dragon 09:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing ZayZayEm's point: "the" is very much applicable and does not specifically refer to this particular version of the myth. See the Deluge (mythology) article.

Also, I'm changing "religious accounts" to "religious accounts of this story". •Jim62sch• 13:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Pico's version of my additions

Please do not go over my edits with a fine-toothed comb to try to hold them to a much higher standard than you even hold yourself to. I have already gone over my own edits with a fine toothed comb. Your changes are simply inaccurate; please do not invent yet another neologism like "quasi-Abrahamic", this is getting past the point of ridiculous now. The "Sabian" religions are pre-Abrahamic, they do not even acknowledge Abraham as legitimate, and are in no wise to be decribed as "Abrahamic" or even "quasi". They are not to be lumped with Bahai, which is unreservedly Abrahamic. Please try to educate yourselves just a little before treading into deep waters. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

These religions in Kurdistan are so old, they trace themselves to Noah, but not to Abraham. They have supposedly broken off the branch before you even get to Abraham. Now, for the past ~4000 years, people who study such things have generally agreed that Noah was BEFORE Abraham. But perhaps now, some of these schools of thought that were literally born yesterday and think they just suddenly invented Comparative Religion, can inform us differently. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Folks, I have just blocked Codex for 24h for this [9] example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Guy (Help!) 13:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, although I don't hold out much hope that the block will bring about any significant change in his tendentious behaviour. •Jim62sch• 14:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please explain the basis for a block here? There appears to have been a legitimate edit dispute and the {{Totallydisputed}} is a legitimate maintenance tag for indicating the presence of a dispute. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(Pardon the interposting): This is the incorrect place to ask that question...you should go to WP:AN/I or contact Guy on his page. Sorry for interrupting. •Jim62sch• 19:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, Codex is a one-man wrecking crew with this article. I think he's intelligent, and I think he brings a lot to this article. But his responses and lack of building consensus needs rehabilitation if he's going to be productive. The tag he threw on the article is not helpful to building consensus and is not going to help all of us make this article better. He needs to be civil and his edits where he makes claims that we're attacking his writing is a violation of the WP:OWN guidelines. He needs to be blocked in the hope that he can modify his behavior. Orangemarlin 16:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Codex believes I'm out to get him. I'm not. I think the notes about the Yezidi et.al. are a valuable addition to the article. But I wanted to tighten them up a bit, and also neutralise Codex's pov - which is that the Yezidi account of Noah is independent of the Abrahamic tradition. I lived in Iraq once upon a time (1990 and again 1997-98), and read up a little on the subject, as one does (there was a shop owned by Yezidis down the street from my house, and I got to meet leaders of both them and the Mandaean communities as part of my job, and even visited the Jebel Sinjar). Anyway, the experts are not with Codex on this one. PiCo 03:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of appearing to defend Codex's lack of decorum, or sticking my nose where it does not belong, the ban was for the totally disputed tag according to the comment, which may have been legitimate useage in his mind. Perhaps actions should have been taken for not being civil instead? ImprobabilityDrive 04:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of the history of his participation of this article: whenever Codex doesn't get his way, he consistently resorts to olacing spurious tags on the article page, or adding tags to the talk page (WikiProject Religion for one) which he knows to be innacurate. Codex' world-view in re religion is "unique" and unsupported by sources, and thus his edits, which reflect that world-view, are frequently deleted or modified substantially.

Both PiCo and I, in shepherding this article to and through the FA process, have dealt with Codex for some time and are well aware of his behaviour. Guy, who has checked in from time to time is also well aware of the history. •Jim62sch• 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sabians?

Sabians are mentioned in the intro sentence and then never again. Was there something lost in recent edit wars? --Pjacobi 16:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think what was lost was the plot, and we know who it was lost by :-) Guy (Help!) 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

By now I've guessed that Sabians and Mandaeans are related, but as our two articles on thse are in violent disagreement, it's still guesswork for the non-expert reader. --Pjacobi 22:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

They're two names for the same group. PiCo 03:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Then boldly placing {{Merge}} tags at our articles Sabians and Mandaeans would be OK? --Pjacobi 19:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be. •Jim62sch• 20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WorldWideFlood link

This website shows that Naval Architects can and have designed a wood ship the size of Noah's Ark that is structurally sound. No other web site has ever bothered to talk to a single Naval Architect. All claims that it is impossible to build a wood ship the size of Noah's Ark are baseless and factless. Allenroyboy 05:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I'm convinced. Orangemarlin 14:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I looked at the website. Why don't you post the exact link where what you're mentioning actually exists, because I don't see where any US Navy Architects have designed a wood ship. Orangemarlin 14:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is who: http://www.worldwideflood.com/general/about_us.htm And who said anything about US Navy Architects? Naval Architects design ships, not government Navys.

Go through the pages listed under the "Ark Structure" menu to see the design elements, data, and proposed design Allenroyboy 14:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Plumbago's right, but I can't resist. The bio page does say that their Naval Architect works for the US Navy. It also says he actually designed exactly one ship over 20 years ago. This one apparently. It obviously wasn't designed by one person alone, so exactly what work he did on it open to question. Since he only has a Bachelor degree in Naval Architecture/Marine Engineering and his Masters is in Systems Engineering, he probably worked personally on something other than hull design. But even if he did, I don't see how that qualifies him to evaluate a wooden hull, which is very much outside his experience. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I long ago gave up on logic with some of the Creationist group. It's a website that puts in a lot of "facts", most of them spurious and of doubtful verifiability, in the attempt to "prove" what they believe. I read the bio page, and that's why commented in the way I did. But I appreciate your trying to be logical, but trust me, it's a waste of time. Orangemarlin 18:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And being a physician makes you qualified to determine which engineering data, strengths of materials data, bending moment data, wave stress analysis data, etc, is "spurious and doubtful"? Get a real Naval Architect, you got nothing to bring to the table. Allenroyboy 18:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

More than you can believe. Hey I was an officer in the real US Navy, so doesn't that qualify me? LOL. See List of world's largest wooden ships. Orangemarlin 19:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey. Just come up with a Naval Architect who can point out flaws in his design. His 20 years of experience and education in Naval Architecture far out qualifies him to evaluate a wooden hull compared to you as software engineer. You can disagree with him if you like, but compared to him you know next to nothing about Naval Architecture and therefore are in no position to criticise him. I dare you to find a real Naval Architect, especially one who has experience with wood, to weigh in on this. Until then, your comments are simply, and typically, ad homenim. (Plumbago: I'll try not to comment further) Allenroyboy 18:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And when someone points a flaw in your logic, you resort to the "ad hominem" attack. That's why I laughed at the article. Orangemarlin 18:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It is TCC, who as a software engineer is unqualified to know, that claims that a Naval Architect is not qualified to design wooden hulls. That is not a flaw in my logic, but pure speculation and conjecture by TCC. TCC's unqualification and conjecture reduces his argument to ad hominem. Get a real Naval Architect....... Allenroyboy 18:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Yeah, I'm convinced. ROFLMAO. Orangemarlin 06:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite the certifiability of the people involved, it seems a reasonable addition to me (reasonable in that special creationist sense). So I'm OK with it remaining. You've just got to admire such misplaced dedication; I'd have thought checking that the Flood actually occurred would a sensible first step before expending great effort designing something to float on it ... --Plumbago 09:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That was my point. And the fact that the "naval architects" drew the ark on a piece of paper, there is some doubt if it would float or remain afloat. And some of the verifiable fact-checking in the article is a bit below the standards of MAD Magazine. No, I quit deleting it, because sites like this one proves the special nature of a typical creationist--they believe what they believe despite overwhelming facts against them. And the lack of proof of a worldwide flood, what does it matter if they could build a 200 cubit wood ark. I'm still LMAO about the site. Orangemarlin 13:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What you both seem to miss is that creationists and flood catastrophists KNOW that the Flood happened and that there really was an ark. They know this because they know the God of the Bible, and they believe he tells the truth. Obviously, you think they are crazy, but that is irrelevant.

They have already checked to see if the Flood actually occurred because God has said it happened. The geologic record is scientifically studied and interpreted by creationists within the FACTs given by the Bible. Evolutionary scientists do EXACTLY the same as they scientifically study and interpret geology within FACTs of the religious paradigm Naturalism. Science is an excellent method to study nature by, but it cannot be done outside of some paradigm (as science philosopher Kuhn has made clear). The difference between evolutionists and creationists is not science, but the paradigms they do science within.

The fact that you thought Naval Architects were architects that worked for the US Navy illustrates the typical low level of knowledge and intellect creationists are continually faced with. These men on the web site are real Naval Architects who have designed real ships, just like other real architects who design real houses, real sky-scrapers, real bridges, etc. These men are experts in their education and profession. You may doubt them if you wish, but unless you have equal education and experience in desiging ships, you have NOTHING worth saying or listening to.

If you want to debunk these Naval Architects, get other Naval Architects to weigh in. If you are correct, that ought to be easy to do. Let experts show where their design is flawed, otherwise you are pissin against the wind.

One of the segments in this article against the Ark is "Seaworthiness:" where non-Naval architects display their religious fervor and 'Mad Magazine' level of knowledge. The "worldwideflood" site answers with real scientific data these scientifically ignorant arguments.

Is this site going to make believers of skeptics? Of course not. But it does utterly remove one of the imaginary arguments against the Ark. Allenroyboy 15:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. I'm utterly convinced. BTW, I'm not a skeptic, I know that wood timbers cannot be made seaworthy at that size without modern materials, and even then, it doesn't work. I know that the flood did not happen on a worldwide basis, because 1) there's no geological, archeological, or biological evidence, 2) there isn't enough water, but what do I care, 3) the bible does not speak in facts, it speaks in allegory and myth, and 4) a website by a bunch of religious zealots who couldn't for the life of them utilize practical scientific methods is easily debunked. You amuse me Allenroyboy, but then again, I'm amused quite about by all of your Creationist theories. I believe in facts, data, and testable hypotheses, and you should be glad I do so, because when one of you come to me to have their heart disease treated, know that all of my work is completely dependent upon science, not on myth, miracles, or the hand of some supernatural god. Orangemarlin 16:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I DO believe that the US Navy could build a wooden ship (with the amount of money wasted on the Armed Forces...) but I don't believe an old man and his family members could... Henners91 07:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"There isn't enough water"... you think... have you proved it? All the water that comes down in rain is in a liquid state, but it was in a gaseous state before that, there is more than enough H2O within the atmosphere if you combine the frozen, liquid and gaseous states and converted it all to liquid, to make one big ocean. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That is beyond easy to refute--if it were in a gaseous state, then the air pressure at "sea level" would be equivalent of a column of vapor 9000 meters high. The pressure would be unlivable. The heat required to make that much water vapor would be past the boiling point. So, Noah would have lived in pressure cooker. Cool. Glad your simple god couldn't figure out a better way to do that. He must have flunked physics at an online University. Orangemarlin 19:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn;t say what if it were all in a gaseous state, I said what if it were all in a liquid state, or at least enough of it to make a huge global ocean... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, your god flunked out of physics. To get to a liquid state, it doesn't miraculous appear out of nowhere--it either precipitates as rain or snow (from a gaseous state), or it just shows up. Oh that's right, in lieu of science, we jump to the supernatural. This isn't going anywhere. The fundamental problem with your logic is that you try to bend the laws of nature and physics to meet this mythical biblical story. Why would any god need to do that? My G_d feels no need to bend the laws that HE created. That's why most Jews know and understand that the Torah is merely a set of myths, allegories, and metaphors. Orangemarlin 19:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If your G_d feels no need to perform miracles, that's fine for you to trust that G_d to save you... but what you said about water getting to a liquid state is exactly the same thing I said - some of it comes from a gaseous state, some of it comes from a solid (frozen) state, and some of it is already in a liquid state, but the only question I'm really asking here is "is there enough water" between all three states combined, to imagine an ocean as large as the surface of the planet. Sure there is. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't need saving. You shouldn't feel it necessary to mock how I spell that name. And no there is not enough water to do what you ask, see below. And no, it is not possible for all that water to fall out of the air onto the planet without creating tremendous pressures and temperatures (once again physics). This conversation is done, you lose. I win. Bring me the finest meats and cheeses in the land. Orangemarlin 23:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but I just want you to know I was not mocking your spelling, I thought you might have also got mad if I had spelled it differently from you! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

After 2000 years of you Christians throwing us Jews into a variety of problematic situations, we have evolved a certain level of thin skins towards comments like that. I rarely get mad, most get sarcastic. Back to the water. TCC has much more patience in describing this stuff than I do. I'd give you links to origins.talk, but you'd dismiss them out of hand. I'll let him explain it. Orangemarlin 23:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there enough water where? On Earth? Maybe -- if the mountains were completely levelled and all land now above water were spread evenly all over the surface of the globe, we wouldn't have to invoke anything supernatural to posit a historical Flood. Everything would be underwater already. But if the question is whether there's enough water to raise the sea to cover all the lands now above water to a depth of 15 cubits or roughly 30 feet above the mountaintops per Gen 7:19-20 -- plainly no.

I suppose God could simply have made the water ex nihilo just for the occasion and then gradually annihilated it at the end of the Flood. And then removed all signs from the Earth that the Flood had ever happened, which to me is on the same order of credibility as the omphalos hypothesis. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is all aside from the wording of the article of course, but it is still an interesting question... I'm not so sure there isn't enough H20, between the polar caps, all the clouds, plus the oceans already there, to raise the sea level 30 feet above Everest... out of curiosity do you know if has anyone ever tried to prove there isn't enough? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not that hard. If the northern ice cap were to melt, it wouldn't raise sea levels at all. That's because it's floating, and is already displacing a volume of water equal to what it would have in a liquid state. (Recall that water is less dense as a solid than it is as a liquid.) If the ice over Greenland and Antarctica were to melt, it would raise sea levels by 220 ft. ([10]) According to our own Wikipedia article on the Earth's atmosphere, the total mean mass of water vapor it contains is about 1.27e16 kg. Liquid water's maximum density is 1g/cc by definition, which is 1000 kg/cubic meter, so this much liquid water takes up 1.27e13 cubic meters or 1.27e4 cubic kilometers. The total surface area of the Earth's oceans is about 3.6e8 square kilometers.[11] Spread evenly that would have a height of 3.53e-5 km, or about 1.4 inches, which is negligible compared to rounding errors for the water in the icecaps. So 220 feet is our answer. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the first link was interesting - question, it also said something like the reason the sea level has risen 8 inches in the past 100 years is not ice melting, so much as it is the oceans being a few degrees warmer, causing them to be less dense and expand to occupy more space. So by that logic it seems wrong in saying that the arctic ice melting would not affect the sea level at all, because if it were much warmer it would not only melt, but be less dense? I'm thinking of an ice cube floating in a cup of water, when it melts the level seems higher than before. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Note my corrections above; I slipped a few decimal places accidentally.

It's true that water is less dense as it gets warmer; I used the easy number there to simplify the calculations. But let's suppose that the water was at 100C, just before its phase change to a gas. This isn't realistic of course, but liquid water is at its least dense then so it's our worst case. Under those conditions, pure water has a density of 958.097 kg/cubic meter according to the calculator here [12]. This is again worst-case, since salt water is denser than distilled. So in that case we'd arrive at an answer that's 1000/958.097 = 104.37% of that we obtained, or 229 feet. (That site perhaps gave the impression that the water density change had a larger effect than it actually does. I see it only includes this as one factor in the sea level rise.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And actually the opposite is true; the water level doesn't change when the ice cube melts. Note that it's important that the ice is floating. A cup packed so full of ice that it's sitting on the bottom of the cup, such as you sometimes get in restaurants, will give you a misleading result. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. True, someone's belief in a miracle of this extent in the first place, would not be much more of a stretch than their belief in similar miracles like the Lord parting the waters of the Red Sea, perhaps like diverting the surface water onto all the inhabited areas for a brief time... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much incredulity over the possibility of a miracle on this scale as such. If you believe that God created the universe, a flood like this isn't a stretch at all. But did he do this in history? What evidence could you point to that would convince an atheist that this happened? Or even suggest the possibility? We should see signs of it all over the place, and we simply don't.

I don't know. I just don't see why the possibility that this is a parable is so troubling to some Christians. As we believe it, God has a well-established track record of teaching us by parable. It seems to me that to focus on the literal truth of a parable is to miss the point of it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well my old headmaster always used to say "You pays yer money, you takes yer choice"... Some people may find that troubling, some people may find the literal belief more troubling, but in the end people believe what they want, but I definitely see evidence that the modern races had a small number of ancestors that spread from a certain area within a certain timeframe, and that there were once other kinds of races or species before then that all suddenly became extinct! I have an idea, maybe we had better transfer this discussion to v:, I hear it is a MediaWiki project where we can actually make original statements!ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, that's what has always bothered me about these discussions. Is your faith so weak that if we finally prove once and for all that Noah's Ark is a myth and the flood never happened that you become an atheist? I would hope not. What is wrong with parable and metaphor? Let's take the context of when Genesis was written, let's say 500 BCE. Most people couldn't read, wouldn't understand science and didn't understand the world outside of maybe 10 km around their homes. Parable and metaphor may have been the best way to tell the story of the beauty of the world. That doesn't damage my faith. That doesn't make me want to worship trees or the moon. Why could not a god (whichever one) created the natural laws and said, "OK, I'm done, let's see what happens." It doesn't make me or the world around me any less special, and it does not obviate the belief in a higher being. Orangemarlin 00:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually to address all of those philosophical questions would require going even further outside the scope of this project, but if you can suggest any more appropriate forum I could consider giving it a try... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that this is all that philosophical. Science, as is commonly stated, doesn't "prove" anything. That's the realm of formal logic and mathematics. What it does do is to collect evidence and formulate generalizations from it that can be used to model physical phenomena. For that purpose it works very well, better than any other systematic treatment of data humanity has ever devised, and we've done astonishing things with it. So we'll never be able to say that we've proved once and for all that the Biblical Flood didn't really happen in an absolute ontological sense. What we can say, and what we do say, is that the evidence we would expect to see if such a thing had happened, based on very well-tested and well-understood generalizations from smaller-scale floods, simply isn't there. Barring the removal of evidence by Divine fiat -- something God has not been recorded to have done IIRC -- we can only conclude that it didn't happen.

The point of this is that there's no reason for Orangemarlin to use a hypothetical here. It has been proved that no worldwide flood happened, using "prove" in the loose sense that the physical facts contradict it. So it's not the literal belief that's troubling, it's the literal belief in the face of the unambiguous evidence. To counter it, literalists have to invoke all kinds of contorted readings of the geological record and un-Biblical Divine acts or otherwise unknown alterations of physical laws, invoked solely to preserve the literal truth of the Biblical account. When really, as both Orangemarlin and I have pointed out, the fact that it's not literally true shouldn't disturb a person of deep faith at all.

Psychology perhaps, but not philosophy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

We are agreed that for this deluge to happen, would have required one of the largest divine miracles of all time. Nobody has really said anything new here, in fact everyone has agreed on that much for thousands of years, and that dynamic probably won't change now either, it all comes down to the possibility of divine miracles, that some people will always accept, and some will always doubt. But whether you rather call it philosophy or psychology, since this discussion is not actually about the wording of the encyclopedic article or the literary sources, etc. if we are going to continue it we should transfer it to somewhere else, like a different wiki, blog, mailing list or whatever. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In a way it is about the article content, because it affects how much weight to allocate to the literalist viewpoint. But I feel like I'm not communicating here. The question isn't about Divine miracles in general. Neither Orangemarlin nor myself have denied them, and I've see at least two with my own eyes. It's about whether this miracle happened as some insist. When a miracle affecting the physical world happens, those physical effects persist. If this one happened, it's very strange that none of the effects we would expect can be found. On balance, the overwhelming probability is that the story is instead a parable. That being the case, a literalist reading should be given very little to no weight. It's held by only a tiny minority in any event. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well according to talk page guidelines, what we keep doing is exactly what we're not supposed to be doing - trying to decide the matter here with our own research... our sources are still going to be the same even if we could determine an answer... and the polls I have seen have actualy suggested otherwise about a tiny minority, what's with the pov pushing now? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Polls? Polls taken where? America? Most Christians don't live in America, most Christians are not Biblical literalists, and most people worldwide are not Christians. I confess I don't know what Muslims generally believe about it, so I admit "tiny minority" may not be absolutely correct.

With any subject involving scientific claims (and claims the the Flood occurred do, since it must say something about geology if nothing else) we have to make a value judgment about what constitutes good science and what does not. For example, we can dismiss fringe theories about electromagnetism being the dominant force over long distances instead of gravity; it's pseudoscience. The same in this case. I know this is uncomfortable, but scientific consensus based on what can be seen and measured doesn't inherently reflect any POV at all. It comes out the same whether the scientists are a believer or not, as long as he's honest in his treatment of the data. It's true that they don't assume Divine intervention in any phenomena they study. That's not primarily because anyone wants to deny such things happen, but because such an assumption is not useful for the task. It doesn't help us understand the physical laws under which nature typically operates.

There are some subjects in which a consensus has not yet been reached, and we must report accordingly in our treatment of them. This is not one of those cases. The research has been done, by others and not ourselves, and the evidence is overwhelmingly clear and unambiguous. The Flood did not happen.

On the other hand, a literal reading of the Bible, particularly the earlier parts of Genesis, does reflect a POV. We can report on the existence of the POV, but we cannot present it with the same weight as we do on conclusions based on research into natural history.

The question you have to ask yourself is, Is there anything about this that can convince an atheist it really happened? If the answer is no, then you're probably looking at it from a religious POV. The atheist isn't neutral of course, and if he could be convinced that the event occurred he'd look for some explanation other than God, but he would be convinced by actual physical evidence, if it existed. Otherwise you're asking him to believe something for which there's no proof outside a religious context. That's plainly unreasonable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

We've had this discussion a million times, and the bottom line is that there are at least two, probably more, substantial and significant POV's here, and the article is not going to take sides or endorse one view, but remain neutral. It should be easy enough to say "According to so-and-so, x = y+z" when attibuting any controversial or disputed opinion, and infinitely preferable to saying simply "x = y+z" as if the opinion were undisputed. Those are the kind of concerns that come up in neutrality cases. Plus, saying "According to so-and-so" tells us exactly who the authority is who is making this claim, which may make the claim weightier for some people, so it is always considered essential to use this kind of formula for multiple reasons. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Any opinion can be made controversial or disputed by anyone. There are people who will argue that the world is flat, after all. Just because a POV is held by some group is no reason to give their opinions equal weight with that of a truly neutral POV. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway ... It sounds like we're all happy for the site to remain in the article. Obviously we won't be agreeing on the deeper issues it raises, but that doesn't matter here (despite my earlier cheekiness, this isn't talk.origins). So we can move on to other possible improvements to the article. Cheers, --Plumbago 17:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I've been an advocate of letting most of the material in the article stay, as it adds to the historical record of Ark research and narrative analysis. However, this link qualifies as neither. It's a modern website that tries to be an authority on the subject without critical analysis. I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source. JPotter 20:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Building a ship the size of the Ark is meaningless in the first place. Sure we can build a wooden ship the size of the Ark today. However, the question is whether they could build it whenever the Ark supposedly existed, and the answer is "probably not". Not that it or the flood occured in the first place. Titanium Dragon 21:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

TD, I missed that special way you put things. Orangemarlin 00:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping that link in there, but I would prefer to balance this sort of blatant nonsense with some links that dispute the conclusion of this tiny group of religious zealots, extremists and people in basic denial of reality. And what I see described above as science is not anywhere close to science. And I speak with the authority of someone who is a scientist and worked as a scientist my entire career. This worldwideflood website is just pure comedy, and completely unprofessional and embarassing to those involved.--Filll 15:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Since it is fringe group that's advocating pseudoscience, don't you think it weakens the article by advocating fringe theories? JPotter 17:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No I do not think it weakens the article. As a person anxious to debunk the incoherent rantings of these marginal groups. it is important to have access to their best claims and explanations underlying their beliefs. As long as we are clear that these are not at all scientific, and are complete nonsense, I see no problem with including them. The value of Wikipedia is that it offers a ready reference for people looking for information. Many will come to this article wanting to know about evidence for and against the existence of Noah's Ark. We do them a disservice by not making this sort of stuff available. I do NOT advocate presenting this website as having any reliability or credence, however.--Filll 19:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Rv from "Ark under scrituny" section

I reverted a recent addition to this section - the reverted material was:

Various comentator's have found other holes in the story, including Joe Rogan, who points out that if the ark took only Noah's family, African and Asian people would not exist today. Other obvious logical flaws in the story include the fact that Noah could not have had access to Australian or American fauna, and that one pair of each of hundreds of millions of species could not fit in a boat of the perported dimensions of the Ark.

The reason for reverting is that this section is a survey of the historical divergence between faith and science, specific to the Ark story, during the European Enlightenment. It stops at about the year 1700 because after that date (roughly) the scientific world-view had become independent of the religious, and scientists no longer felt any need to reconcile a literal interpretation of the Ark story with their investigations in the natural world. It's not intended as an arena for polemics.PiCo 04:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It is understandable that the polemics should be removed, but shouldn't a section entitled "the ark under scrutiny" include simple common-sense arguments against the plausibility of all of the literal story? This section covers only the natural history part. There are obvious reasons of anthropology aluded to in the removed portion that could be found in more tasteful sources. Furthermore the literal version of the story includes impossible feats of engineering and construction. The size of the ark as indicated in the bible, as well as the time it took to build with a tiny amount of manpower... these are easily dismissed as fiction by science. Is there any reason, other than to avoid offending literalists, that these facts should be omitted?Maxanova 03:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The biblical literalism section combines modern arguments for and against the reality of the ark, It doesn't go into a lot of detail because the the mass of material is overwhelming and the arguments endless and inconclusive - you'll never convince the literalist editors on this article that the ark wasn't big enough to hold all the species, or that the koalas would have run out of fresh gum-tips on day 2. I suggest you read that section closely, and also read it in tandem with the sections on traditional views of the ark, especially the Jewish ones. The medieval Jewish rabbis were addressing the same problems as modern literalists, and coming up with remarkably similar answers. For example, the question of how four men could have built a wooden vessel bigger than the Titanic was anticipated by the rabbis, who took the verse in Genesis (just before the Noah story) in which has God say he will set "the days of man" at 120 years, and interpreted this to mean that Noah had 120 years in which to grow trees, cut and cure the wood, and build the vessel. But I guess the real difference between your point of view and mine is that I regard questions like these as interesting but peripheral; for me, not being an American, there's no need to enter into dispute with the literalists, they're just too insignificant in my country to matter; for me, the interesting and central theme of the ark story is how it serves as an example of the emergence of our modern civilisation. From what I hear coming out of America, I somewhat doubt that the US fully shares in that civilisation, but that's a separate issue. PiCo 10:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not cater to significant opinion within only one country, it seeks to have a global perspective and take all points-of-view into account. Now I would like to address the erroneous and ignorant assumption we repeatedly see in here that it is mainly people in the United States who subscribe the Bible as the Word of God, that they so not consider the Word of God to be described as "myths". Associating this view with the United States is in itself painting a false picture. I don't know what country you are in but this is a very ancient and traditional view. The purpose of encyclopedias is best served when you can learn things about the world of reality outside your own little corner of the world. I suggest you read up about all the smaller religious sects such as Sabians, Yazdânism, Bahá'í Faith, etc. etc. all of which hold the prophet Noah (and the Ark) to be a central, historical figure. He is also held to be a central figure by a number of Eastern and Oriental Christian Churches that hold the book of Genesis to be canonical and the word of God, some of these religions are currently the official religion of rule in sovereign countries such as Greece. These religions do not say "the word of God is mythology". That is what is called a Point-of-View, and will be contested as such for as long as necessary, because the Bible is a firm belief, and not one restricted to the United States. And then we have Islam, which holds Noah to have been historical (not mythological) according to the Quran, and is the official religion of rule in a large array of sovereign countries. Let us please stop these word games and foolishness and return to having a truly NEUTRAL Encyclopedia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A religious book is taken to contain the "word of god" by subscribers of the religion the book represents; and then only to the extent these subsribers wish to so take them. To the rest of the world they are mythology. In other words, that you elect to consider the bible as the (literal) word of god is a matter of conscious choice, but do not expect everyone else to view the bible in that light. •Jim62sch• 20:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

But I don't expect anyone else to view the Bible in that light. I only expect Wikipedia to remain NEUTRAL between all the SIGNIFICANT points of view, and not to declare ANY of the said points of view to be either True, False, Historical or Mythological. We must let individual readers work it out for themselves, according to their own beliefs or research. Exactly as I have said repeatedly, all along. I cannot believe after I have stated this so many times as I have, you are still twisting my argument and telling me "do not expect everyone else to view the bible in that light". Are you really that thick that you haven't even been paying a bit of attention to what I have been saying all along? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not the role of NPOV. NPOV should not place WP:UNDUE weight on the Bible viewpoint. You are trying to push the Bible view to create a standard of verifiability and reliability that it simply does not meet on this matter.--ZayZayEM 02:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That is an assessment I would definitely dispute, it is unquestionably a significant viewpoint of many diverse groups as outlined above and deserves commensurate weight, not to be antagonized with pejoratives like "mythological". NPOV calls for balance between all the significant viewpoints, not totally ignoring many views while endorsing only one view that is not accepted by many. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

ZayZayEM, the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh are the *only* ancient records on Noah's Ark. Of these two, the vast majority of belief is based on the Bible. The Qur'an story is similar. It is not undue weight using the Bible as the majority source for this article. ^rossnixon 03:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV should not place WP:UNDUE weight on the Bible viewpoint. You are trying to push the Bible view to create a standard of verifiability and reliability that it simply does not meet on this matter.--ZayZayEM 02:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC) I am not saying don't use the Bible as a source. That is really unavoidable. I'm saying don't bring its bias into the article. You are using the Bible's POV to argue against its mythological status.--ZayZayEM 00:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty strained argument. I am using the Bible's POV only to argue that this is an article about a Biblical story, and that the views of those belief-systems that include the Bible, with many millions of followers around the world, do (believe it or not) actually have some relevance here... therefore it is what we call a "significant" view, and we cannot assert or imply that any of the significant views are either true or false, historical or fictional. Is that not clear enough? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If people use Wikipedia for "research" they don't really want a biased article.... I would imagine the reason this article is so frightfully unbalanced (in my mind I see scales, and they're currently waaaay over the Christian side as opposed to what *I* believe to be facts) is the fact that the majority of users on English Wikipedia are American, and the majority of them are Christians, the minority cannot control what the majority choose to edit; sadly.Henners91 07:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How did four men build a ship the size of the titanic out of wood in so little time?

Shouldn't that be discussed in the articleMaxanova 03:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that it was built ONLY by Noah and family. To be sure, they built it, but they may have also hired workers who need not be mentioned. No large building that has ever been built lists all the workers who ever worked on its construction, only those most responsible for it's existence. Allenroyboy 13:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Noah hired workers and then left them to drown; that's very Christian... I prefer to think that he was helped by birdies and butterflies! Henners91 07:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If eight Jews got on the Ark, and everybody else on earth died, where do asians and blacks come from

Shouldn't that be discussed in the articleMaxanova 03:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There were no such things as Jews until over 1000 years later. Allenroyboy 13:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)#

Middle Easterners are Caucasians so I assume Noah was too. Henners91 07:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Lumping together Bahá'í Faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, etc.

I predict that sooner or later, in the article's most ideal form, Bahá'í Faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other organizations that have almost zero in common with these, will eventually get their own section headers, instead of getting somewhat condescendingly lumped into "Other religions" with the "Undue weight" policy being offered up as some kind of misguided rationale for doing this. So, the question now is, will they be getting their own section headers in 2007, 2008, or 2009? Til Eulenspiegel 12:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If we have to do this with every religion, does this not become an unwieldy article? I know this question will open a can of worms, but isn't the LDS religion just a subset of Christianity? Orangemarlin 19:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case there is a reference to mention in a separate set of scriptures, so the views are distinct. I don't see any alternative (per WP:NPOV to including the various religions. If the article becomes too long, there can always be break-outs into subarticles. --Shirahadasha 19:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone has a special interest in another faith's beliefs about Noah's Ark that they feel is not adequately covered in this article, they are free to write another article. However, it is ludicrous for us to envisage covering the dozens and dozens of belief variants that exist in this article. An upper bound might include 1000s of different accounts and variations. --Filll 19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I imagine long before things got that far there'd be a breakout into subarticles and a list-form subarticle serving as a table of contents for the ones on the various religious traditions. There are ways of managing the complexity involved while still keeping the main article readable. --Shirahadasha 03:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The note on the Ark in Mormon religion simply says it's "mentioned in the Bok of Mormon" - the rest of what it says in that sentence isn't strictly relevant to the Ark (it makes some mention of an "evil King Noah"). It hardly seems worth telling the reader that the Book of Mormon "mentions" the Ark, and if the mention turns out to be simply what's already in Genesis it hardly seems worth mentioing at all. So I'm removing the LDS unless and until the editor comes up with something distinctive to say about the Ark in Mormon tradition. PiCo 08:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Titanium Dragon 07:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

World religions

To clarify, as there seems to be some issue regarding whether my edit summary "makes sense"[13] "World religions" is far too inclusive, and inaccurate. Hence, Abrahamic religions. "World religions" is vague and has no delineations; Major world relgions, although also without a clearly defined boundry agreed upon by all do include by all accounts Hindu and Buddhist, neither of which have the Ark as part of their mythology and/or beliefs. Abrahamic is accurate. World religions is not. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My understanding of the Koran is that it includes a statement that large parts of the Koran are allegorical, including statements about heaven and hell [14]. I also understand that the entire story of Noah and the Ark appearing in "Yunus" in the Koran is allegorical. Oops...[15]. I have found copious references to this in the literature. I guess you do not know very much about Islam, otherwise you would know this, wouldnt you?--Filll 20:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific religions

Recently Til has stated his view, here as well as elsewhere[16] that omitting specific reference to the LDS and Baha'i religions constitutes supression or censorship. I offer these figures for consideration by editors wishing to ensure we do not violate either NPOV or its sub-clause of Undue weight:

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

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

Specifics on LDS and Baha'i

• LDS: 10,000,000[17]
• Baha'i: 7,000,000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To which I would add:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mentioning of Johan's Ark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh

See [18]for an interesting screed. @@ •Jim62sch• 19:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Page protected

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

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

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

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

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

POV dispute and Featured article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From RfC

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

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

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

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

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

According to some definitions, but that's an oversimplification. Myths are stories that express the worldview of a culture, and they're religious only to the extent that the culture is. The word means simply "story" in Greek, with no connotation of religion to it. See the definition at [19]. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

True, unfortunately Codex has appropriated and misapplied your comments.

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

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

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

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

POV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bot Archiving?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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