Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

Featured Article version vs. current version

This article was given Featured Article status several years ago. It is still currently listed as a FA despite being fundamentally rewritten and changed since then. I think we need to take a serious look at the approved version as compared to the current version and do everything we can to return this article to the quality level seen at that time. DreamGuy 16:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can start a temp article, Talk:Noah's Ark/Temp say, consider the old, current or a new article structure, and amalgamate portions of the old and current version of the article to the satisfaction of the FAR. I presume there is a time limit on FAR so I'm not sure if that is the best approach to take with a time limit, but it would probably be the most beneficial as far as the article goes. Ben (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned elsewhere, the current version of the article woefully under-represents information about similar deluge myths in other cultures, and the searching for Noah's Ark section claims that there are only two POVs: The ark was real, and we'll go find it; the ark was real, but you won't find it because it must have been rotted or pulled apart by now. The vast majority of Biblical scholars, prominent Jewish leaders, and many mainstream Christian groups do not believe in the literal existence of the ark. The article is about 98%+ focused on the literalist viewpoint. That'd be fine if this were the encyclopedia of Liberty University or something like that, but it's not. The article needs a massive rewrite, and we have a very good indication of what it should like like in the form of the article as it existed when it became a Featured article. I think a total revert wouldn't be out of line at this point, with an effort to then go though and add back in anything that was added since then that is informative, well-cited and NPOV. If there is a strong objection to that idea, a temp page with this content could be set up as Ben suggested. Either way, though, this article needs major changes before it even meets our basic policies, let alone is deserving of retaining the Featured Article status. DreamGuy (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason why the current version of the article under represents information about similar deluge myths in other cultures is that the subject of the article is the Ark in the Genesis narrative. It is not the deluge myth. People do keep making this mistake. The title of the article is supposed to help ('Noah's Ark', not 'Deluge Myth'), but it seems people just don't read the article title. The 'search for Noah's Ark' section does not claim there are only two POVs, it simply presents the POV of those searching for the Ark and the importance of the discovery to them, and the POV of those who believe it won't be found and the dismissal of its importance. It would be entirely redundant to include a statement saying 'People who don't believe the Ark ever existed do not believe it will be found'. But you can go ahead and include that if you want.

By 'literalist viewpoint' you seem to mean 'viewpoint that the Ark was a historical vessel'. As discussed many times previously, undue weight is not being given to this viewpoint since there is evidence that it remains a dominant viewpoint. Even among non-believers who hold that the Genesis narrative is largely fictitious, the view can be found that it is based on a genuine historical event which was exaggerated in later retelling. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You suppose some people don't read the article title?!?! Whoa. You can't have any understanding of Noah's Ark a a topic without covering deluge myths beyond just a single sentence. And the claim that the ark has being a historical vessel is the dominant viewpoint is not only completely wrong but, frankly, absurd if you give any thought to the worldwide belief on the topic, let alone Western thought, let alone anything outside of the Bible Belt. The claim that even nonbelievers think that there was a real historical event involved that was exaggerated is also off base, and doesn't support the position of saying the ark was a real vessel anyway. This isn't Evangelicalproselytizingopedia, so we need to give more views than just that one. DreamGuy (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You're late to the party. This discussion has been thrashed out repeatedly here. The article contains plenty more on deluge myths than just a single sentence. I don't have any problem with what it says about other deluge myths. But you do. You think the article on Noah's Ark needs to contain more discussion of other deluge myths. There is no reason for this. It's simply WP:COAT. If you want to write about other deluge myths, there's an existing article on that subject.

You are not reading what I write either. I didn't say that the belief that the Ark was a historical vessel is the dominant viewpoint. I said it is a dominant viewpoint. It is in fact one of the most significant viewpoints on the subject, and that is precisely why it receives coverage in this article. Please see WP:NOTE.

Furthermore, if you don't know that there are unbelievers who believe that the Ark story was based on a genuine historical event then it's clear you're ignorant of the standard literature on the subject. This doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the Ark was a real vessel, but it does have a bearing on deciding if that particular view meets WP:NOTE. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, YOU seem to think that the article is only about a wooden ship and not the story (which has no article then). I still think it's bizarre that you can have an article which plainly IS talking about the boat, the man, the animals, the flood, the associated intepretations, people's ideas on practicality etc.. But you still insist that this article is just about the wooden thing. There are articles about planks of wood, animals, gods, people etc but it is not COAT to discuss how they are all combined in this story. NathanLee (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We've been over this many times before. Of course this article is about a wooden ship and also about the story. That is why the entire story is plainly told in this article. That is why there's an entire section on the literary origin of the story. That is why there's plenty of information in the article on the actual flood story. I haven't objected to any of that, and in fact I've been one of the editors who actually sourced such material and included it in the article. What I object to is people trying to use this as a de facto 'Genesis Deluge' article, instead of writing a new article specifically on that subject. Complaining that it doesn't have enough information on comparative deluge studies is missing the point of this article. That kind of content would be entirely appropriate to an article specifically on the deluge. Why doesn't someone just start one? --Taiwan boi (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• You make a good point. This is an amusing parallel with the story which appears in Genesis, since it appears that this was synthesised from two different versions. It seems that we must now do something similar with the article to combine the best from both versions. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that a reasonable balance can be achieved here. My understanding of the MoS is that in this situation, where there is an article dedicated to deluge myths, the correct 'style' is to have a "main article" ref followed by a paragraph or two that is substantial enough to explain in basic terms, but not so long as to duplicate too much of the main article.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This edit speaks volumes in a number of ways, not least of which was the unintentional juxtaposition of the two versions for comparative purposes. When looking at the previous version (one that has a valid claim to stability) we see a scholarly article, a piece thaqt is as cloe as WP will ever come to true scholardip and balance. Then we see the current version: a literalist's wet dream replete with oodles of pointless post-biblical musings on the "real ark" (as if) and religious gibberrish and exigesis that is of no real value and belongs on Conservapedia. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide some examples please? I don't think I'm reading the same article. I'd like to see you provide specific examples, with an explanation of how they breach Wikipedia policy. --Taiwan boi (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall mentioning policy, but, simply being in line with policy does not guarantee a good article. And yes, we're reading the same article. This article would never make it to print in the Encyclopedia Britanica. Maybe in the Encyclopediae Biblica or Mythologica. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Being in line with policy is a good indicator of article quality. You have mentioned policy, you keep saying that the article is pushing a POV. But you haven't provided any specific examples of this. You've hinted also at undue weight, but you haven't explained this either. What, precisely, is your problem?

Neutrality

The article has been tagged for NPOV but I can see no real discussion here of why? Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's an odd claim given that the article covers such a broad range of the believer POVs (Jewish, Christian, Muslim), as well as containing strong criticism of these POVs from both believers and non-believers. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• I did not place the tag but support it while sections of good sourced, material continue to be suppressed upon ideological grounds, e.g. "this material is solely fundamentalist, creationist, and literalist". Some discussion of ancient ship-building practises and the history of attempts to reverse-engineer the ark seem quite appropriate to this article. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Currently PiCo and others to remove referenced material which describes the various different Christian views and the secular criticism of those views. This would render the article decidedly POV. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not enough for material to be referenced; it also has to be relevant, and to avoid undue weight, and to be correctly described. The deleted material fails all three. For the last, I think we need to set on record that any point of view that speaks of a literal ark, is literalist. It's also creationist - specifically, old earth creationism. Not that there's anything wring with old earth creationists having a view, of course, but they're a distinct minority - most creationists are young earth. PiCo (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You haven't presented any evidence that the material is irrelevant, breaches WP:WEIGHT, or is incorrectly described. As explained previously many times, any view that speaks of the Ark as a historical vessel is a view concerning its historicity. It is not necessarily a 'literalist' view. The term 'literalism' refers to Biblical literalism, a method of interpretation followed by Fundamentalist Christians, not non-Fundamentalist Christians or liberal Christians. To claim that it's a 'creationist' view is equally absurd as the two subjects have nothing to do with each other. It's even more bizarre to claim that it's an OEC view. If a belief in the Ark as a historical vessel is only an OEC view, are you saying that YECs don't believe the Ark was a historical vessel? That's patently untrue. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, all you are doing here is kneejerk denial, and your edit comments and discussion here (and those of Colonel Warden above) prove overwhelming bias towards your own personal religious beliefs. OEC and YEC are both put together just a minority, and encyclopedia articles follow hat SCHOLARS have to say on the topic. We can give inforamtion about what ministers and so forth have to say, but we absolutely do not endorse their views, and we also have to include all the other, and in many cases more relevant, views, per the entire basis of WP:NPOV policy. DreamGuy (talk)

You are confusing describing religious beliefs about the Ark, with telling people that these religious beliefs are true. This article describes religious views of the Ark, but does not say they are true. Of course we have to include what scholars say on the topic. I have contributed more reliable sources to this article than any other editor here (over 40), many of them specifically describing the critical secular views of the Ark. You have now accused me of editing in bad faith, so I suggest you get your evidence together and we can take it to mediation. This article is not endorsing any religious views whatsoever. The very suggestion is absurd. Ironically it has been people like Ben and PiCo who have called for the removal of the skeptical material from secular sources (provided by me). All relevant views are included in this article, both religious and secular. At least they were, until Ben, and PiCo and others started removing the secular material and some of the religious responses.

As I have pointed out already, coverage of the Ark in just about any material you care to mention, in electronic or print media, is focused largely on these issues. These are the most frequently discussed topics when the subject is raised in either religious or secular literature. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Suggest this Mar 30 2006 version as immediately after the main page appearance, to rollback the damage done to this featured article. Can do a dif and discuss merging in any changes since then one by one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel it would be better to copy that version to Talk:Noah's Ark/Temp or something then amalgamate if necessary. This way we have two versions on hand to mess with, instead of unilaterally throwing one version away. I won't revert though since others seem to agree with you. Ben (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

One version deserves to be thrown away. DreamGuy (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting throwing a version away. I'm suggesting that rather than work from the biased, non-FA version and trying to fix that, we should start from the FA version, and discuss the merits of any additions before incorporating them. There is a difference. In my experience, sandbox articles usually simply stay in the sandbox and accomplish nothing. (There are always exceptions.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What kind of stupid idea is this. We started from the FA and there's been lots of improvements. All you're doing is meaning we'll take another 2 years and end up at the same point. Reverted as (for instance) that action puts the page back to a stage which completely ignores the Islamic version, lacks numerous tags for other language version, links to dead pages etc etc etc. This is not the way forward to go years into the past versions. NathanLee (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If there are particular issues then address them as smaller, manageable changes. Rolling back to May 2006 just means we'll have a year of deja vu arguments about the same stuff and having to fix the same problems and only then end up back where we are now. Discuss your particular issues and make small improvements via discussion. That the article was considered "featured article" with its pretty deficient coverage of things is pretty strange, and blind acceptance of it as the perfect article is a dangerous precedent. We don't just revert to the featured article version whenever someone says "I don't like this version" or else wikipedia will go nowhere. Discuss the particular issue, don't massively revert out years of editing/discussion and improvements. "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater" is the expression I believe. NathanLee (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The baby was already thrown out of the bathwater long ago. Going back to the FA version of the article restores the baby. Nobody is calling it a "perfect article" but the changes made to it were more bad than good, as agreed upon by many editors, and the FA team thought it met their standards and the POV-pushing one clearly doesn't even meet standard article policy standards. If you think anything from the other version is worth salvaging, then by all means put those specific individual pieces back (pending consensus discussion if they are opposed), but don't revert to the POV-pushing version. And please, "what kind of stupid idea is this" isn't particularly civil. DreamGuy (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with NathanLee, a revert of nearly 3 years of edits is clearly undemocratic. There has been no discussion of POV problems that I can recall over that time. Please advise us where this discussion is if you know otherwise. There needs to be more discussion on the talk page before any mass-revert action is taken. Reverting to stable version. ^rossnixon 01:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy - what in particular is so broken with the current version? The notion that you'll just roll back years of editing on a flimsy pretext of "this version is bad" is just not on. The featured article version certainly wasn't as perfect as you're making out. NathanLee (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with rossnixon and NathanLee. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If some examples of what makes the current version "POV-pushing" could actually be provided then maybe they can be addressed. I think we can only move forward with this if we actually define what is wrong, rather than making sweeping generalisations.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(ri) Too many explications of how the ark "could" have looked, how it "could" have floated, how the inhabitants "could" have lived, an so on. Absolute piffle. Let us take two of every herbivore on a boat that soon runs out of herbal food (sorry, no dietary suppliments allowed) and they shall not starve but shall feed us. Bah. Does anyone really believe the story of the ark? Yes, yes, sadly people do. What ever. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean 'too many'? The article doesn't present these as factual, it presents them as the answers of believers to skeptical objections to the Ark. Is there a problem with this? --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Too many and yes. It's a case of preaching; it does not represent them as "believers say...". Essentially, these sections need to be rewritten, but I'll not be wasting any more time. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I suggest you take the time to actually read the section. You claim this section is 'preaching', and you claim 'it does not represent them as "believers say"'. So let's look at the actual wording together:

• 'Biblical literalist websites seem to agree'
• 'literalist websites cite various studies'
• 'Ark-believers claim'
• 'Other ancient ships commonly used as points of comparison by modern Ark apologists'
• 'According to Ark dimensions commonly accepted by Biblical literalists'
• 'While some Biblical literalists hold'
• 'Numerous Biblical literalist websites'

You were saying? --Taiwan boi (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose if all one watches is the Mystery Channel it sounds fine. It has that vague wording that "seems" to imply something. Whatflippingever. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Your claim was this section is 'preaching', and you claim 'it does not represent them as "believers say"'. As we've seen, the complete opposite is true. Can you be specific about the 'vague wording' which you think 'seems to imply something'? Thus far you've been complaining a lot about the content without being able to supply actual examples of the faults you assert. In fact we've just seen that the major fault you asserted doesn't even exist. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure sounds a bit flimsy to me - but perhaps this is scholarship among believers in Noah's Historical Ark :) PiCo (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia has an excellent article on the mechanics of the ark - how big it was, how it was built, all that stuff. I suggest a link to that. PiCo (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

PiCo, I'm sure it is.

Boi, I did explain. I did not spell it out, but I'm not so sure you'd like me to do so.

Look at 'Biblical literalist websites seem to agree' -- do they or don't they agree? And what are these illustrious websites?

BTW, this "Biblical literalists and fundamentalists " is redundant. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Good, now you're actually focusing on content and real issues, instead of complaining about nothing. If you don't like 'seem', then take it out. And at the end of that sentence you'll find a link to a sample 'Biblical literalist website'. Plenty of others are contained in the section, which could be added to the end of that sentence. Biblical literalist and Fundamentalist are not equivalent. Fundamentalists are pretty much all Biblical literalists, but not every Biblical literalist interpretation is exclusive to Fundamentalism. It's entirely possible for a liberal Christian to have Biblical literalist views. But if you have evidence that the distinction isn't worth making, by all means provide it and edit accordingly. --Taiwan boi (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Fundamentalist is a subset of literalist. I'll ignore the rest. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

what about the rest of Xianity?

According to the Gallup organisation, 60% of Americans believe in a literal ark. OK, is this belief maintained in the globalcommunity? Americans have a professed love for hoo-doo (Yes, I'm an American and can say this with experience and certainty). •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but that's an excellent point. We need to avoid US-centrism. Where might we be able to find such statistics? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that Gallup or Zogby would have done polls elsewhere than the US. If we need the sentence at all, it needs to be compared and contrasted. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

By and large, no. It's hard to find similar polls, but it seems that for the UK the figure is around 20%, and single figures on the Continent. Among Muslims it probab;ly approaches 100%, but that's just a personal impression, I have no figures. I have no figures for Jews, but there's only around 5 million of them (I think), so they don't make a difference to global figures (which isn't to say that we shouldn't mention the figure is we can get it). Outside Christians, Jews and Muslims, the figure is probably not worth recording - Chinese belief in a literal Ark? Is it meaningful? PiCo (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The question is, how significant is the topic of US Biblical literalism to the topic of Noah's Ark (WP:DUE). I suppose there can be a brief section on US Biblical literalism at the end of the article, pretty much as in the current revision.

I don't think this is overly US centric, since non-US non-literalists generally don't waste too many CPU cycles on Noah's Ark anyhow, so there isn't much to report on this article. The only thing missing in order to counter-balance US-centrism might be "Noah's Ark in Armenian nationalism", since the Armenians tend to have a bee in their collective bonnet about Mount Ararat and the Ark. Plus, there may be a section of "In modern literature". Which we should not allow to degenerate into random trivia, but there is more than enough venerable literature to justify such a section without adding lists of mangas. The "In modern literature" and "In Armenian culture" sections should probably come before the "In US bible-thumpery" in terms of WP:DUE, but I repeat that there is nothing wrong with a dedicated "In US bible-thumpery" section (and I say this as a non-USian. Loony US Christianity has at least as much worldwide notability as Armenian patriotism). I just object to naming the literalism section "Biblical interpretation", because that makes it sound like Biblical scholarship. Biblical literalism has zero notability to serious Biblical criticism, the two are in fact straight opposites. --dab (𒁳) 08:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The section 'Biblical interpretation' includes the non-literalist interpretations (including the historical-critical method), hence the description. I don't think that anyone is likely to confuse 'Biblical interpretation' with 'Academic Biblical scholarship'. But if you can think of a better term, please suggest one. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr Bachmann, it is incredible that you would have the undisguised arrogance to even suggest that a significant number of people who believe the story of Noah's Ark, is "insignificant" to the subject of Noah's Ark, with many gratuitous insults directed against these believers bordering on hate speech. This is turning the NPOV policy on its head. The use of insults is not going to change anyone's mind: those who believe in this are going to continue to believe in this, no matter how much you insult them or deny them a place on wikipedia. What good do the insults do, other than to make yourself feel grand? 70.105.25.176 (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Dab may have been a bit harsh, perhaps, but as a USian (accident of birth) I feel he is quite accurate on all accounts. On the issue of religion, many Americans are wont to embrace a medieval mindset. Hell, I'm quite sure that many would welcome a new Inquisition, and hundreds of thousands would volunteer to be Torquemada. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

seems a bit of a paradox to me...

"As early as the 19th century the view that the flood was merely local and did not cover the earth was well established within mainstream Christianity.[7] This interpretation remains popular and important among more liberal Christians who retain a belief in the historicity of the Ark and the flood narrative". Can one believe in the historicity of something while changing the facts as presented? Is historicity the same as truthiness? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no paradox here. It's describing how the event has been interpreted differently by people who believe in its historicity. It's not a matter of 'changing the facts as presented', it's a matter of re-interpreting the presentation of the facts. This is standard methodology in the analysis of any text, especially historical documents. You'll find professional historians and archaeologists do it all the time. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Missing the point, of course --not that I care. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Book of Genesis is not a historical document, of course - those who think it is are by definition Biblical literalists. It's certainly interesting that Old earth Creationists have tried to reconcile their belief in a literal bible with the scientific evidence prohibiting such a belief - but the result belongs to fringe beliefs, even among literalists (most of them believe in the world-wide flood). PiCo (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Structure

FA version:

   * 1 Narrative
   * 2 Textual analysis
   * 3 Biblical literalism and the Ark
   * 4 Other flood accounts
         o 4.1 Mesopotamian flood stories
         o 4.2 Other flood stories
   * 5 The Ark in later Abrahamic tradition
         o 5.1 In Rabbinic tradition
         o 5.2 In Islamic tradition
         o 5.3 In Christian tradition
   * 6 The Ark under scrutiny
   * 7 The search for Noah's Ark
   * 8 See also
   * 9 Footnotes
   * 10 References

B version:

   * 1 Narrative
   * 2 The Ark in later traditions
         o 2.1 In Rabbinic tradition
         o 2.2 In Christian tradition
         o 2.3 In Islamic tradition
         o 2.4 In other traditions
   * 3 The Ark in post-Renaissance scholarship
         o 3.1 From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment
         o 3.2 The Ark and science in the 19th century
   * 4 In contemporary Biblical literalism
         o 4.1 Searches for Noah's Ark
   * 5 See also
   * 6 Notes
   * 7 References
   * 8 External links

My first suggestion is to move 7 The search for Noah's Ark to below 3 Biblical literalism and the Ark as in the B version. Comments, agree, disagree, thoughts? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't agree. TBH that looks like a list of the "history of views of the ark"--FimusTauri (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have previously suggested a revised structure. I will present a simplified version here for your consideration:

• Introduction
• Narrative
  • In Genesis
  • In the Quran
  • In other sources if required
• Traditional Viewpoints
  • In Rabbinic Tradition
  • In Christian Tradition
  • In Islamic Tradition
  • In Other Traditions
• Historicity
  • The Minimalist View of the Ark
  • The Literalist View of the Ark
  • The Story of the Ark as Allegory
  • The Development of Critical Evaluation of the Story of the Ark
  • The Search for Noah’s Ark
  • Seaworthiness
  • Practicality
  • Capacity and Logistics

Some of the headings will need to be changed.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I like this. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than restructure the whole thing, please address ONE change at a time. It may eventually get to look like your concept, and it may not. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems better to consider the structure as a whole rather than piecemeal. This is surely the point of an outline - to study the entire composition. User:FimusTauri's version (which we might call C) provides a more developed framework in its section on Historicity which provides clear places for discussion of the ark as a vessel or ship, which seems important as the various hypothetical designs and constructions will be of interest to our readers, who will be looking for answers to questions such as how big was the ark?, how were so many animals contained and organised within it? and so on. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A couple of quick points. I agree with Colonel that it is best to consider the overall structure, but I can also agree with Killer that it is good to address changes one at a time. It is possible to agree on the overall structure in general terms (always subject to later tweaks) and then concentrate on individual changes. Having a structure to work to can often help guide the individual changes. Secondly, the above was drafted with the more recent version of the article in mind (rather than the original FA version), so I acknowledge it may need some work. Whether my structure is adopted or not, however, I do feel there are advantages to starting with an overall plan.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please allow for a section which is currently missing from the outlines above - some reference to the Ark as it appears in general western culture. Representations might include paintings such as the one which currently illustrates the article; fiction such as Evan Almighty; children's toys such as the commonplace model complete with wooden animals; the song The animals went in two-by-two; metaphorical references in projects for endangered species, nuclear war survival and so on. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean a section of cultural references? Most sections like that get filled with nonencyclopedic nonsense very quickly, and the examples cited seem to just be an indiscriminate list of trivia. DreamGuy (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have absolutely nothing to add at this point except to say I have a really good feeling about this talk page section so far. I love it when everyone is tossing ideas in and discussing them with freedom to agree, disagree, and tweak and there are no personal remarks or extreme advocates for one idea or another. So as your view for the whole, as well as a small tweak in the overall, move Search to under Biblical literalism for now? In FT's outline, it is under Historicity but so is Literalism, and Literalists are the only ones out looking for the darn thing, yes? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Historicity heading there as proposed would still end up overall giving WP:UNDUE weight to the idea that it is historical, when most academic sources think its metaphorical. Labeling the overwhelming academic consensus as "the minimalist perspective" and then having a bunch of additional subsections which are all essentially "it was a real boat, parts B, C, D, E and F" not only doesn't answer the problems raised, it compounds them. The only people who care about that stuff are the literalists, who are a minority. We should over their ideas, but not give anyone an improper idea about how influential their positions are with the rest of the world. DreamGuy (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't give WP:UNDUE weight to the idea that it is historical, as it contains numerous citations from academic sources explaining why they think it's unhistorical. I wouldn't think that the overwhelming academic consensus would be described as 'the minimalist perspective', I would think that was the title of the perspective of non-Fundamentalist and liberal Christians. The overwhelming academic consensus would come under 'The Development of Critical Evaluation of the Story of the Ark' and the relevant sections on seaworthiness, practicality, and capacity and logistics. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So is that a yes, put Search under Literalism, or No, leave it where it is? :-P KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

   * 0. Introduction
   * 1. Mythology
         o 1.1 Jewish / Christian
         o 1.2 Islamic
         o 1.3 Other
   * 2. Interpretation
         o 2.1 Jewish
         o 2.2 Christian
         o 2.3 Islamic
         o 2.4 Other
         o 2.5 Literalist (common threads with all the above)
   * 3. Development and relationship with other flood myths
   * 4. See also
   * 5. Footnotes
   * 6. References
   * 7. External links

Yep. Ben (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 'Search' goes under 'Literalism', because it's a view only held by literalists. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Akin to searching for Jesus' ossuary? Oh, wait... •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So are we sufficiently agreed on this to progress further with it? --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Not with the structure just above. That structure utterly fails in the single most important element - there is no summary of the story. There needs to be a "narrative" section after the intro - it doesn't need to be long or detailed - but the article needs to tell people what its actually about before going on to discuss it. If the intention is that that is what the "mythology" section is about, then the title needs to be changed - the reader can make his own mind up about whether its "mythological" or not.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually support this structure of yours.

   * Introduction
   * Narrative
         o In Genesis
         o In the Quran
         o In other sources if required
   * Traditional Viewpoints
         o In Rabbinic Tradition
         o In Christian Tradition
         o In Islamic Tradition
         o In Other Traditions
   * Historicity
         o The Minimalist View of the Ark
         o The Literalist View of the Ark
         o The Story of the Ark as Allegory
         o The Development of Critical Evaluation of the Story of the Ark
         o The Search for Noah’s Ark
         o Seaworthiness
         o Practicality
         o Capacity and Logistics  --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Islamic section

...needs to be seriously reviewed. Mildly worried that turn of the 19th century Jewish encyclopedias are being used as sources, and some of the information in here previously was... well, wrong might not be the right word, but "part of Islamic tradition" rather than "actually in the Quran." Notably, in the Quran, there's definitely nothing about the flood being worldwide. I'm sure that this kinda sorta was in some versions of general Islamic understanding - the early Muslims had access to Christian and Jewish scriptures - but it certainly wasn't universal, and not in the Quran regardless. The bit about there being exactly 70 idolators that Noah converted also must be from other sources, though it'd be nice to know which ones - I've tagged that with a cite request. The closest is the Jewish Encyclopedia reference to there being 80 people who got off... but how many were converts? How many family members? The source doesn't say. And some stuff there previously was just wrong - Noah's son is definitely not actually his son according to the Quranic account, a fact that was omitted before.

Anyway, there's a lot in this section that needs to be improved. Not sure if I have the right sources myself, but will try and give it a fuller look later. SnowFire (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Arabic transliteration

I have changed the Arabic transliteration of the article title to Safinat Nuh, the -t suffix being characteristic of feminine nouns starting a construct state genitive ('idafa). neatnate (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

3rd most important idea changing the world

Any justification for that footnote? Do you really think that revitalising the US Interstate highway system is the 4th most important idea changing the world? It's also a big jump from "10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now" to 'the 10 most important". Dougweller (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

changed it to more accurately reflect time's title. and what i think does not matter here -- this is not to be original work. the article by Time gives support for why the sentence it footnotes should be in here. plus, there is a section (albeit incomplete as it is) on biblical literalism in the article and should reflect in the lead. minority views have their place in articles, this, as shown by Time, is certainly that. it's credible. the literalists who are searching for the Ark in Turkey -- now they are very, very minor. that in fact is a fringe belief -- less than minority -- and yet that is allowed without question. why would that be? Blahzzz (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ben, 2 sentences on the minority view is not "too much." delete the fringe view if you like. and beofre you delete a reference to a Time mag article, please prove how Time in unreliable. Blahzzz (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about Time, let alone it being unreliable. We shouldn't be using footnotes to write an article, and moving the information you put in the footnote into the article goes into way too much detail on literalism for an introduction on Noah's Ark. If you'd prefer to replace the note about people looking for Ark with a brief description of literalism then let's see what you have in mind. Ben (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

there. takes out the fringe view and places in a credible minority view. the footnote doesn't write the article, it proves that biblical literalism is a legit. minority and has a highly reputable source to show it. this articel needs a sentence like this up front, or it's lacking. Blahzzz (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem with the footnote? Just curious... Swift as an Eagle (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't say important, and it's pretty clear that 'changing the world' is hyperbole and shouldn't be taken literally. Plus the issue of whether this is a good use for a footnote. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Intro has Fringe view allowed but not the one main minority view?

Why does Ben begin an edit war with me and delete this sentence without discussion? Blahzzz (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I already gave you a link to WP:BRD. Your suggested edit is:

Nevertheless, biblical literalists continue to believe that the narrative of the Ark is a real historic event in history, concerning a real physical Ark, and a real historic man named Noah.

This is a pretty poor sentence. What is with all the "real historic" and "real physical" bits? Why is anything other than "there exist biblical literalists" necessary if you want to remove the sentence on searching for the Ark? Your suggestion is repeating itself, no? I'm still inclined to leave the sentence as is since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. At present the article deals with how literalists deal with inconsistencies and searches for the Ark. It would be a pretty hard to sum up in a sentence how literalists deal with inconsistencies, but we can easily mention people search for it (as we currently do). Ben (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is simple, straightforward, and cuts right to the point. And it is written in that way as a reply to the sentence right before. And you answer for why the "search" should be placed in there and not the real minority view is only "but we can easily mention people search for it." Come on, that's wimping out and I suspect you know that. This lead puts WP:UNDUE upon a fringe view and leaves out the largest minority view. Therefore it is clearly not NPOV and I would agree with blahz. however, there needs to be something in the article to line it up to. that should be suggested first, and agreed upon, then a lead sentece can be added. what think you? (ps. plus, i like the Time article :) -- although it mentions "New" Calvinism, and not "Calvinism") Swift as an Eagle (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I began writing a reply, but I was just repeating everything I typed above. If you're going to accuse me of 'wimping out', please be sure to address all of my argument. On top of that, I have another question. Do you think it's necessary to state there exist biblical literalists in the lead of every article that touches on material contained in the Bible? If not, why is this article special? (Note: please don't just reply to this new question, my last comment still stands). Ben (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying that a minority view has a right in every article yes. Now, mind you, I do believe that it needs to be in the article in order to fit into the intro. If there is the main view saying, "many believe the ark false," then the minority view should be placed. Wikipedia allows for that certainly (but I don't want to do that right now, working on another article and exams next week. will revisit after that.) Cheers, Swift as an Eagle (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to including minority views in the article, I'm opposed to declaring there exist literalists in the lead of every related article. At least the 'search for the Ark' note is unique to this article, and is summarising a section of the article per WP:LEAD. Ben (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

two responses to that: 1. "biblical literalists" is already in the lead. 2. this article appeals particularly to biblcial literalists, because they are the ones who actually believe in Noah's Ark. therefore, I think that position needs to be given a far greater weight in this article. (to compare: without this position being very evident in the lead and article, it's like having a wiki article on the NBA, but not allowing people who actually follow basketball to edit the article, because technically, NBA fans are actually a minority in the world today--get it? ) Swift as an Eagle (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Who reads the article is not an issue for deciding WP:DUE weight, which should reflect the weight of expert Archaeology and Biblical criticism opinion, which give little or no weight to the historicity of Noah's Ark. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 23:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

<----Noahs ark being real isn't a minority belief. Almost every christian in america believes that it really did exist. The only christians who don't believe it are the ones who actually study the history of it. They then go on TV and try to speak for everyone saying that christianity as a whole believes that it is a metaphor, or something equally absurd. Honestly, coverage of minority beliefs is wikipedias greatest downfall. The verifiability over truth is good in most cases, but when bigger people squash coverage of minorities, thus making them seem smaller than they really are, wikipedia suffers from its policies. I dont know why I'm doing this, no-one is going to listen to me. I guess, I could almost exclude myself from this on conflict of interest, as I do have a somewhat unique point of view on the subject. Growing up in the church I have most of the bible memorised, but rejected the faith when I saw that people only lived what they preached on sundays. I see both sides of the story, and often find myself contradicting myself. But the idea that people who believe the ark actually exist being a minority is absurd.Drew Smith What I've done 10:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's your rather aggressive personal opinion. Wikipedia tries to avoid bias. You don't speak for every Christian in America (only someone extremely ignorant of the wide range of views could seriously try to claim that "almost every christian in america" believes the story is literally true), and even if you did there's the non-Christians AND the whole rest of the world out there. Belief in Noah's Ark as a real, historical object is an extreme minority view, when placed in proper perspective. If you want to write for Conservapedia, by all means go for it, but Wikipedia has higher standards than that. DreamGuy (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Second that, and suggest you find at least one very strong source to support your assertion before arguing further. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

...Let me spell it out for you. The majority of christians in the world are normal, uneducated people, plus all the children. To them, noahs ark, like everything else in the bible, actually happened. I'm not saying to put it in the article. I'm saying think about what you write. I know verifiability is more important than the truth, but truth is still important, so try to get it as close to the truth as possible.Drew Smith What I've done 10:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You can spell it out until the world ends, that's still not providing a source. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, maybe it would be better recieved to say that "extreme minority" and "fringe" is violating WP:NPOV.Drew Smith What I've done 12:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry, it wouldn't be better received. And, no, sorry, when it comes to articles concerned with real or purportedly real subjects, guidance on reliable sources dictates that we do not give undue weight to pseudoscientific viewpoints, no matter how many people personally subscribe to them. --PLUMBAGO 13:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

<---But you aren't giving it enough weight. This belief isn't "fringe" its a relatively large minority.Drew Smith What I've done 13:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the important point is that, within reliable sources such as academic journals, it is a fringe viewpoint. In the specific case of Noah's Ark, yes, it's probably not inaccurate to say that a "large minority" or "substantial fraction" of people believe that it was a real boat that survived a real event. But that's not important here. The published views of scientists and historians that consider the wide-ranging evidence are most pertinent. NPOV does not mean that we follow a simple demographic scaling of viewpoints. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 13:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV does mean that we remove key words that others may find offensive.Drew Smith What I've done 13:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please quote where WP:NPOV states this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy that. Creationist viewpoints are clearly fringe. Anyway, judging from the above, it looks like progress is not going to be made here. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 14:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Now thats where I draw the line! Creationist viewpoints are NOT fringe! Every christian in the world believes in creationism, and nearly half the world is christian! That seems like a majority to me!Drew Smith What I've done 14:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Every christian in the world believes in creationism" Wrong -- please read Theistic evolutionism, a viewpoint that rejects creationism. You are conflating Creationism with Creation.

Forget it Drew.... These guys are committed to defending their religion to the death and they pervert every WP policy to their end. Just go back and read in the discussions and history which documents their religious fanaticism. Christian Skeptic (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Saith the religious fanatic (projection, anybody?). Incidentally, Martin Luther defended geocentricism based upon exactly the same type of bigoted Biblical literalism that creationists use today to defend their own obdurate fantasies. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

From Dictionary.com: Religion

"something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:"

"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

These umbrella definitions cover all kinds of religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism, Spiritism, Deism, Naturalism, NFL fanaticism, Naziism, Communism, atheism. You don't have to have priests, cathedrals, a catechism, a God or gods or to have a religion or be religious. You just need to be zealous, devoted, conscientious, conscientious over something you think is important. And WP is full of zealous editors defending their faith in Naturalism and faking it as "science." Christian Skeptic (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for further demonstrating your utter tendentiousness CS. The second definition you gave is in fact the sixth (of nine) on Dictionary.com, and uses "religion" in a metaphoric, rather than literal, sense (compare to the 7th: "Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow"). Such arguments effectively eliminate all credibility you might have on these pages. Or were you claiming that anybody would seriously make the argument that "NFL fanaticism" would be covered under the First Amendment's freedom of religion clauses? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The ranking of definitions in a dictionary has to do with common usage NOT importance and common use does not equate to more right or more wrong. If it were wrong, it would not be in the dictionary. It is purely your invention to fit your preconceived beliefs that this definition is a metaphor. It is just as literal as any other definition. Which of the several literal and valid definitions an author uses depends upon the context of his writing. The context of the First Amendment implies more common definitions, rather than a general, umbrella type of definition, so "NFL fanaticism" would not apply. But, "NFL fanaticism" is a religion in the sense I mention above, as are all the other 'isms'. They are all special case religions. Theism (belief in a God), eg. Christianity, is one kind, Atheism (belief in no god) is another. And the courts have ruled that Atheism is a religion. (see http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874 and http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/index.html?id=206&article=1) So you are just a religious as, if not more so out of desperation, and just as tendentiousness as I. Christian Skeptic (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"If it were wrong, it would not be in the dictionary" is an amazing and simply wrong claim. Collins Essential English Dictionary, 2006 defines archaeology as "the study of ancient cultures by the scientific analysis of physical remains [Greek arkhaiologia study of what is ancient]". I've seen similar definitions in other dictionaries. Ridiculously wrong, but it's in the dictionary so it must be right? Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If it were just one dictionary and if it was an abridged dictionary then you might have a case. However, this begins with similar definitions of religion from at least one unabridged dictionary listed on Dictionary.com. And the Concise Oxford English dictionary (also unabridged) which says "a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion." Stay on track... Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

And courts and legislatures can say what they want, that doesn't make their pronouncements or laws fact. I'm sure you realise that. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Stay on track? Are you kidding me? Go back and read your first comment in this thread, then swallow your own advice and find something more constructive to do with your time. Ben (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have a source for your assertion that "nearly half the world is Christian" then you really need to get it over to Major religious groups, where all the sources currently say Christianity is about 1/3 of the population. Unless you consider 33.32% to be "nearly half"? And, we are still waiting for a source "the majority of Christians...believe... Noah's Ark is real". If you have one, please post it here. If you do not have one, please follow talk page guidelines and cease discussing your personal beliefs. thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad footnotes

This interpretation remains popular and important among more liberal Christians who retain a belief in the historicity of the Ark and the flood narrative[29][30]
Both 29 and 30 direct to fundamentalist christian sites. Kind of like quoting Dick Cheney as a liberal Democrat. Nitpyck (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

So change "liberal" to "fundamentalist" :) PiCo (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Narrative vs mythology

There seems to be some dispute about the use of these words in the lead. I prefer narrative which seems more NPOV in tone than mythology which seems loaded in this context. I have reverted accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Myth" would appear to be the more accurate term for a religious 'narrative'. Refusing to call it that would not appear to be WP:NPOV so much as WP:CENSORship to avoid offending the sensibilities of Biblical literalists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ignorant literalists, at that, "Myth" used in this context makes no value judgment as to the truth of the story. Only those ignorant of the meaning of the term would draw such an erroneous conclusion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget lazy. Clicking a wikilink and/or checking a given ref isn't exactly hard work. Heaven forbid they might actually learn something. Ben (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Colonel Warden is very well aware that this particular discussion has been held over and over and over again, and also quite recently. I don't know which is worse: still trying to push a POV onto the article's wording against extremely clear consensus or just wasting our time beating the very, very dead horse. DreamGuy (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Editors assistance requests

A complaint that this article is controlled by atheists has been started here [1]. Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

A complaint that this article violates WP:NPOV has been started here [2]. Drew Smith What I've done 13:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Complaints of violation of WP:NPOV belong at WP:NPOV/N, not WP:EAR.
2. Could people please stop 'proclaiming' themselves atheists (wherever it is that you're doing it -- which clearly isn't here) -- it's against the rules of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy^TM to do so (after all, how can you have a conspiracy when you openly declare yourselves?).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have a userbox, but I thought now that we had the machine on our side we were allowed to openly declare our allegiance? What have I done? Ben (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

As you are therefore clearly the "group of self proclaimed atheists [that] are controlling the article" that Drew was alluding to, you are hereby charged with (i) Majestic pluralism without high office & (ii) instituting a article-despotism without first first eliminating all the other potential despots on this article (thus violating the clause forbidding multiple absolute rulers). How do you plead? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Modern Christian (Jewish & Muslim) views on Noah's Ark

The dispute over what proportion of Christians view Noah's Ark as having been a historical reality, made me notice that the article doesn't appear to mention the views of the major Christian denominations (and that of the other Abrahamic religions) on Noah's Ark (to the extent that they have a consistent doctrinal view on the matter). Would such material (assuming we can find sources for it) be a worthwhile addition to the article? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Catholics (approx 1 billion/half the Christian population) reject the historicity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis (which includes Noah's Ark).[3] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What the lead says

"Noah's Ark is a large vessel featured in the mythology of Abrahamic religions. Narratives that include the Ark are found in the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an." And we're spilling all this ink over this? I'd actually say that captures the scholarly state of play in a rather neutral fashion -- and can't see how an educated person would see "mythology" as a synonym for "fairy story" in that particular context. The word "mythology" doesn't appear again until 5-6 screens down, talking about some irish addition to this narrative -- "According to Irish mythology, Noah had a fourth son...." The use of "myth" here is not pejorative. It is precisely the prefered term for discussing these kinds of narratives in an academic context, which is the tone and model i think we should strive for.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, like the academic tone used in other encyclopedic topics in this scholarly website, like the biographies of porn stars. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the point? That there's lots of crap here that falls short of what we should be striving for? In complete agreement on that.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Baseball bugs makes a great point. And he's funny too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horneldinkrag (talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The advantage of using story is that it is sufficiently ambiguous to admit of all points of view. The story of Jack and the Beanstalk, The Story of the Race to the Moon, The Story of America's First Black President are contradictory but acceptable uses. Myth, as used in the common vernacular of most of readers, is not ambiguous at all. Compare The Story of the Moon Landings with The Myth of the Moon Landings. The latter clearly asserts that the moon landings didn't happen. And indeed, the OED has "A purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions, or events, and embodying some popular idea concerning natural or historical phenomena" as its first definition of myth.

If we classify the story of the Ark as a myth, and use the definition of myth most often encountered by most of our readers, then we are saying that it didn't happen, thereby giving zero weight to a significant minority POV. So, regardless of their beliefs or level of education, I think most readers are going to be brought up short by seeing that term used so early in the article, and are going to follow or hover the link. Is that a good thing?

Personally, I don't have a strong preference for either term, but the opening sentence does appear to go out of its way to use the term mythology. Contrast that with Britannica which prefers story in its lead, not using myth until well into the body. My concern is that we're pushing the reader to become sidetracked in issues to do with the nomenclature before she's even finished the first sentence. I certainly feel that those are issues worthy of consideration by the article, I'm just not convinced that they should be brought to a head so early on.

Having said all of that, if the way we have it now really does accord with the way it's treated in scholarly literature, i.e. dive straight in define it as belonging to the mythology of Abrahamic religions, then I would agree that is the way to go. The last thing I want is that we dumb-down the encyclopedia, but I wouldn't like it to be gratuitously controversial either.--MoreThings (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. If that's how Britannica does it, then we've got a good precedent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I came late to the party but I noticed the same thing. Britannica uses "story" in the lead and then explains what a "myth" is and how the story fits into the various mythologies. That's a great way to progress. Padillah (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hm. Very reasonable train of thought. Less focus on calling it myth throughout, but a section which does specifically focus on the story's mythological properties and relation to other deluge myths would be acceptable to me, while being careful not to make the section into a WP:COATRACK about deluge myths in general. At the very least, there should be a statement somewhere that says (sourced, of course) "In the anthropology community, the story of Noah's Ark is generally regarded as a deluge myth". Possibly it should be qualified with a brief explanation of the academic definition (though being careful to avoid looking apologetic).

Earlier, I had suggested that the article attempt to address the controversy (if any) there is in the disconnects between the interpretations/definitions/etc of theologians, lay Christians and secular academics. Has anybody looked for sources to possibly address this? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't come across anything like that, but I agree with you that if we could quote academic discussion it would be ideal. And per wp:lead any controversies should at least be mentioned in the lead. TBH, I think controversy about referring to it as a myth ≈ controversy about whether or not it holds any truth. --MoreThings (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• (Outdent) I think MoreThings makes a terrific point. The word "story" (rather than myth) is obviously the best way to accurately communicate the point without causing undue offense (whether necessary or not). "Story" is perfectly sufficient. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a decent enough point- my concern is that this article should contain at least a cursory treatment of Noah's Ark from an anthropological perspective. At worst, a summary style (sub)section that references deluge myth. Would a structure like this be appropriate?

• Lead
• NA as a biblical narrative (i.e., in relation to other sections of the Bible)
  • NA in modern Christianity
• NA as a historical account (would contain info on the search for the Ark)
• NA as folklore/mythology (i.e., anthropological perspective, relation to deluge myth)

Of course I mean this as thought for a rough structure, and I don't mean that each section should be given equal weight (though they should be given due weight).—/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The advantage of using story is that it is sufficiently ambiguous to admit of all points of view. - MoreThings
Umm, the article is going to explain there was no global flood, no ark etc. anyway. Why are we trying to be ambiguous in the first sentence when all possible hints of ambiguity are going to be straightened out in the following sections anyway? Ben (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is not going to explain that there is no global flood or no ark. The article is going to explain that there are appropriate sources that say this AS WELL AS appropriate sources that say otherwise. The point of this article is NOT to prove the lack of truth (or presence of truth) of the Noah's Ark story. Rather, the point is to present vverifiable, reliably sourced description of the ark and the story surrounding it (whether it is "truth" or not). Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, except there is that little thing called a NPOV. Specifically, we aren't to give undue weight to fringe views like literal interpretations. They're notable enough to mention, but they're far from being able to be given equal weight here. Ben (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That brings us to another point. This would require an entire separate discussion/conversation to determine consensus as to whether literalists are considered fringe. Even if there were, there are various levels of literalists (for example, those who believe it was a regional flood, but still believe it happened/the boat exist(ed/s). I am in no way arguing as some others above have, that all/most Christians believe in a literal interpretation. In fact, I don't know what that number should be at all. I just don't think it's insignificant enough to be considered fringe. That having been said, NPOV is EXACTLY why I believe narrative or story should be used (rather than myth). I haven't "tallied" the voices above, but I'm pretty sure consensus is currently that it be left at narrative (or story). Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. What we're about here is assigning due weight to each point of view. If we use terminology which classifies the events as fictional, then we are assigning no weight at all to the POV that asserts the events are factual.--MoreThings (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well; the WP:WEIGHT violation would be to not show the lay Christian and theological point of view, and to treat it as a "farcical aquatic tale". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not equate literalism with lay Christian's and theology. As has been explained many times above, the term mythology does not connotate true or false. This is as easy to refute as looking the term up in a dictionary. As for literalism being fringe, the book Fundamentals of biogeography by Richard Huggett gives an exact point in time when things started to go pear shaped for the literal interpretation:

Eberhardt Zimmerman in 1777 finally laid the literal ark to rest in a zoological tract that was the first book to describe in the detail the distribution of mammals.

In his book discussing the relationship between religion and science, Science and religion by John Brooke, he tells us that:

The desire of biblical literalists to show that the story could have been history acted as a spur to the study of zoogeography, even though the eventual, and ironic, outcome was that they sank their own ship.

Indeed, as has been mentioned above the Catholic church no longer supports a literal interpretation and they make up around half of all Christians. From a biblical scholar perspective, literal interpretations are very few and very far between. Of course, I'd be open to reasoning and sources otherwise. Ben (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ben, I gave the dictionary definition of myth, above. OED:

1. a. A purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions, or events, and embodying some popular idea concerning natural or historical phenomena.

..b. in generalized use. Also, an untrue or popular tale, a rumour (colloq.).

2. A fictitious or imaginary person or object.

To call it a myth is to call it a fiction. To call it a fiction is to give no weight at all to the POV that it is factual. Is it your position that that is what we should do? --MoreThings (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

But did you give the dictionary definition of mythology? Because, you know, that's the word we're talking about! Ben (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and what the hell? I just checked myth in the OED and it gave me this:

1. a. A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon.

Myth is strictly distinguished from allegory and legend by some scholars, but in general use it is often used interchangeably with these terms.

Where are you getting your definition from again? Ben (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Ben, chill out. I'd like to ask you this; was literalism ever a mainstream view? If so, it would likely be appropriate to discuss it from that perspective as it would have historical significance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Before things get too far afield, biblical literalists are but a subset of those who once accepted the flood as an actual historical event--including theologians. This speaks to a concern I raised earlier that the "literalist" tradition may be incorrectly implying the term applies to every thinker who "believed the flood happened". This is not the case. Catholics, for example, have a much more complicated methodology for biblical interpretation that doesn't neatly categorize as "allegorical" or "literal". Professor marginalia (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ben, take it easy, mate. We're on the same side here. I don't have a preferred outcome. If the current phraseology turns out to be the best one per WP policies, that's fine with me. I'm just here because the RFC requested community participation.

Regarding the dictionary, I'm using OED version 3 on CD. The definition I gave was cut and pasted from that. It could be that you have version 4 which is just in the process of being released, or a newer version of V3, mine is very ancient. I also have the SOED on CD and the definition in there is the one that you gave. Regarding the definition of mythology, Hrafn posted that at the top of this page. Cheers, --MoreThings (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I'm not that worked up, sorry if I came across that way. Yes, literalism was a mainstream view for at least a couple of hundred years. The Fundamentals of biogeography book I mentioned above goes into some details. From what I understand (and PiCo, DreamGuy, and others may be able to flesh this out a bit), is the original authors never intended the works to be taken literally. While they wrote it from an historical perspective, it was never meant to be considered actual history. Fast forward to the Renaissance, and literalism really took hold. It wasn't too long though until such an interpretation was impossible to reconcile with our increased understanding of the world. For a very thorough account of this transition, there is an excellent essay by Janet Browne, titled 'Noah's Flood, the Ark, and the shaping of Early Modern Natural History'. It is contained in 'When science & Christianity meet' by David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers, but you may be able to track down the essay on its own.

I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting, but if you're suggesting we write as if literalism is mainstream because it was a few hundred years ago, then I strongly object. If you're just suggesting we have a section on literalism, then I am all for that (we already have it, though rewriting is fine), but it can not dominate the article. People presumably come here to learn about Noah's Ark. While unnecessary offence should be avoided, we can't sacrifice neutrality (with respect to reliable sources) in order to avoid any offence. Wanting to call something a story because people are offended by the word mythology is silly, and essentially censorship. It's a perfectly acceptable, and very useful, term, and there is a wikilink and a reference that goes into some detail for the curious reader.

MoreThings, I just checked it on the net. It apparently no longer lists that definition then, and I guess I can take a screenshot to verify that claim if anyone wants. Ben (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ben, I had ec with you. I've just rechecked the SOED version, and it's not the same as the one you posted, so I'll add here for the sake of completeness, and in the spirit of the more the merrier :) I'm not sure what you mean by screen shots, but I certainly believe that what you quoted is what you read, and I don't need a screen shot. I'm happy to send you one of what I have if you'd like. My guess is just that you're looking at a newer version than I am.

1. A traditional story, either wholly or partially fictitious, providing an explanation for or embodying a popular idea concerning some natural or social phenomenon or some religious belief or ritual; spec. one involving supernatural persons, actions, or events; a similar newly created story.

solar myth: see SOLAR adjective1 & noun2.

2. A widely held (esp. untrue or discredited popular) story or belief; a misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth; an exaggerated or idealized conception of a person, institution, etc.; a person, institution, etc., widely idealized or misrepresented.

3. Myths collectively or as a genre; the technique or habit of creating myths. M19

--MoreThings (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if there are current well-established dictionaries that give only those definitions then we have a real problem (as opposed to whining from the 'I don't like it' crowd). I don't know what to do from this point, since the term myth / mythology really is the right word to use here, it's going to be impossible to remove usage of the term from the project as a whole, and it's going to be impractical to explain its meaning in every article that uses it (as opposed to leaving the explaining to the mythology article). The problem is, context (which is more than adequate in this articles case) can't guide readers to the intended definition of the term if the intended (or close enough) definition isn't present in every mainstream dictionary. The question is, should this affect our article writing? The easy response is 'yes', and I can sympathise with that response, but is that the right answer? Keeping in mind this article isn't special in some way, whatever reasoning we use should be applicable across Wikipedia. Do dictionaries trump relevant reliable sources on topics? If I was to find a dictionary that only gave a 'speculation' definition for the word theory, would that rule out use of the word theory without lengthy explanations in scientific articles? I would say no, but I'm open to (serious) reasoning otherwise. Ben (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• There are many "right" words to use in describing where the story of Noah's ark comes from. The Janet Browne piece you talked of above, as one example, is content with calling it a "story" in her introduction. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Ben, I don't think it's necessary or beneficial to use mythology as opposed to narrative or story. I don't see the value-added, and I think it's just asking for argument. Further, myth and mythology are not the ONLY academically accepted way to present the information, so, no it isn't "impossible" to remove it. As has been shown, other well respected, established encycolpedias have found that using "story" is sufficient. What, exactly is the shortcoming of the word "narrative" or "story"? How do these words not express the necessary message of this article? Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

I've spent an hour or two browsing Google Books, and it seems clear to me that by far the most common terminology is "story of Noah's ark." I wouldn't argue in favour of that if it flew in the face of the consensus view of scholarly sources, but I haven't seen any evidence that it does.

The phrase we have at the moment appears to be sourced to "The Bible Without Theology", the full title of which is "The Bible Without Theology: The Theological Tradition and Alternatives to It". Here are some quotes from the [http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Without-Theology-Theological-Alternatives/dp/025206870X Amazon editorial review and product description]. I'm not trying to cherry pick, these are simply the phrases that jumped out at me: "utilization of the burgeoning field of mythography...clearly intended to provoke its readership... Robert A. Oden Jr. advocates stripping away the theological and historiographic biases that underlie modern biblical scholarship...Oden calls into question a scholarly tradition..." Unless we have something more substantial than that book, I don't think we can make the case that the phrase we have at the moment is supported by the consensus of scholarly sources.

Here are a couple of examples from Google Books where story isn't used:

Josephus, the Bible and history.

"the Genesis account of Noah's ark"

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

"Many students of Scripture are not interested in looking for the ark because they beleive the Genesis Flood account to be a legend with no basis in fact. At the opposite end of the spectrum are those who support such a search because the want to prove the historicity of the Flood."

Shapers of Babtist Thought

"Like the location of Eden (2:8), the location of the grounded ark is finally a place in mythic vision, as is the flood on which it floated that submerged even the highest mountains (7:9). The biblical narrative relegates the flood to the realm of myth when God is portrayed as excluding it from the range of what will happen of what will happen in the world of nature and history (8:21-22, 9:8-17)"

but there are many, many more where "story" is used, and I still favour that term On a perhaps related point, I think that article would benefit from a historicity section, and I'm going to add a section to discuss that below.--MoreThings (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many dimensions that rightly apply to the Noah account--and just one of them is the part it plays in ancient Abrahamic myths. Clearly it has a theological dimension as well--and I think that trying to box this into a single disciplinary "label" is where we're missing the boat. The fact that the story has more than one dimension is made clear in Oden, the source cited for the "mythology" terminology in the intro. His work is essentially an argument for alternative methods of analysis of the Bible texts (including Mosaic texts,), different from the method that has predominated (theological). I think our current handling in the intro is a bit clumsy and inadequate. We are provoking puzzled questions rather than answer any. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

@Professor marginalia, what you said leaves me with a question: Are we trying to find an acceptable word for the intro paragraph or are we trying to find a replacement word for Mythology? It looked like we started out simply trying to find an acceptable word to use in the lead that would be acceptable to most. But now it's looking like some are trying to find a word to replace myth or mythology altogether. As mucha s I can compromise on using story in the lead I don't think I could support an article that treated this subject as anything but the myth it is. There can be no support of this as a going concern outside of noting the fringe belief that, despite evidence to the contrary, there are some that continue to believe in this as a literal truth. It would be misleading to present anything else. Padillah (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel that we should be defining it as a myth right at the top of the article. We shouldn't approach the article with the intention of proving it to be "the myth that it is", but we should give due weight to all points of view (and all scholarly research), which many might believe adds up to pretty much the same thing. --MoreThings (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The dispute, as I understand it, was about how to word the lead. The lead uses "mythology", without any context or elaboration, and to the exclusion of other equally valid "labels". The whole "literal truth" dispute is raised here largely because the word "myth" implies "not true" to many people. You replace it with "story" or "sacred narrative" and people are less inclined to conclude "truth" or "untruth" either way. The whole thing is hopelessly confused because "mythology" in the sentence doesn't even allude to Noah's Ark itself as mythology, it simply says it appears in the "mythology of the Abrahamic religions". So it can also be said that "Jericho is featured in the mythology of the Abrahamic religions" and Jericho is real enough. One can more readily conclude from the wording that the religions are mythology, which naturally invites NPOV objections. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

more on our main source

As far as I can see, the primary source for the phrase "mythology of Abrahamic religions" is The Bible Without Theology, which is available on Google Books. A search for ark in that book returns zero hits. A search for Noah returns 2 hits, one of those is simply a chapter note citing another work with Noah in the title. The other is this "...all who could read any one of several European languages would hear of a hero more ancient than Noah in a Mesopotamian version of Genesis..." If that book actually is the only source for the phrase, I don't feel we have sufficient sources to justify its use. --MoreThings (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the what the source has to say:

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

I think that is pretty explicit. Ben (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there would be a problem finding sources besides this one. The problem is that even in this source, the author gives a fairly lengthy exposition into the hows and whens this opinion came to be developed, as well as a fairly lengthy sketch of the ongoing dilemma of defining myth itself. And that's a dilemma within the community of scholars over an academic definition, largely putting aside the dilemma we face in a mainstream encyclopedia. (As another editor pointed out earlier, an edit elsewhere in this very same article used "myth" to mean "not fact".) The cite doesn't treat the term as abruptly and cavalierly as we have here...the author realizes he has to present a case and explain the rationale to his readers. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I chose that source because it gave an explanation for curious readers. I could have just given a source that classified the story as myth as abruptly and cavalierly as we have here. The dilemma is long over, and the same book explains that (in fact, it's implicit in the above quote, but more details are in the book). Also, incorrect usage of the term in this project is not an argument against using it properly. There is really no meat to your comment, while on the other hand we have a source that directly addresses the issue at hand and is in favour of the classification myth. Ben (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the real "meat" of my argument better made pointing this out: the sources we have mentioned here in the midst of this debate (Encyclopedia Britannia, Oden, and Browne just to name 3 you've offered) haven't been "abrupt and cavalier" at all, so maybe we could should take note of this and ask ourselves why we'd do better to go off cherry picking for some new ones. And I thought we agreed, it is incorrect to characterize this as one of only two choices, "mythology" or some "incorrect usage".Professor marginalia (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The "dilemma" pertains to the definition to give "mythology". If you think it's been "long over", you disagree with Oden. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, I never hinted at a dichotomy. I simply said a recognised expert in the field (Odin), and speaking on behalf of other experts in the field, agreed with the classification myth. It seems to me though that you feel it is a choice between 'mythology' and 'not mythology', with your mind already made up without an apparent (to me) good reason. The debate shouldn't be so binary - it's only ever going to split votes, as seen below. I have tried to characterise the debate dispassionately (see above), and I think it's worth addressing in that form. At the very least it will be more productive than simply splitting votes, and at best we can reach some sort of consensus on the issue. Finally, I'm not sure why you're bringing up the definition of mythology now, but I don't disagree that there isn't a universally accepted definition of the term. The same can be said of most of the English language though. Ben (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

On re-reading it, I agree that it gives more weight to the definition than I saw when I first read it. And if it is the case that the weight of scholarly opinion is that it should be classified as a myth, then we should say so in the lead.

Ben, how do you feel about the editorial review and product description on Amazon? The feeling I had from them, and from the subtitle of the book --"The Theological Tradition and Alternatives to It"-- was that this is a book that to some extent challenges the scholarly orthodoxy. I'd also read this review which points out that the dust jacket claims the book is "revolutionary", and that in it Oden is arguing against what he calls the "theological tradition" Do you feel that the view represented in this book is the mainstream scholarly view?--MoreThings (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I need to get to work now, so I'm sorry I can give more than: I do think the view represented in this book is the mainstream scholarly view. Ben (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. If it is, and personally I'd want more than this single source to be convinced that it is, then we should say so in the lead. I still wouldn't be comfortable with having the lead structured the way it is at the moment, with editorial voice declaring: it's "a large vessel featured in the mythology of Abrahamic religions." and that's it. My opinion would be that we'd need to say "most scholars classify it as ..." We would also need to give a voice to the minority opinion that classifies it in entirely different terms, unless we are saying that the minority voice is so thin as to carry no weight at all in the lead.--MoreThings (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

@Ben-the reason I'm bringing the definition of mythology up is to explain that Oden goes on at length doing so in order to explain how Bible stories qualify as such. He doesn't expect his readers will know what "mythology" means; he expects they won't. I'm not arguing the point that this story cannot be seen as mythological. I'm arguing that we haven't illuminated anyone's understanding of the story; simply stamping a "mythology" label on it is creating more heat than light. I do not think the solution is "mythology" or "not mythology". I think that the 1st para should be reworked so it actually has enough content that it doesn't rely completely on this one uncontextualized label, as it does now. That's why I've yet to weigh in with a choice in the RFC...if it can only be *one* thing, I go with "sacred narrative" which is equally accurate to mythology, and less prone to misunderstandings. But I don't think "sacred narrative" goes far enough to repair what is a weak, minimally informative, introductory paragraph. I'm inclined towards including in the 1st para that the story's origins go back to older, pre-Biblical Mesopotamian flood myths. We don't need to label anything, we need to describe it.

@MoreThings-Oden is a theologian, and his book is an argument for incorporating the types of analyses going on in mythological scholarship into theological scholarship. Where he's most "revolutionary" is that he's arguing to extend this into the New Testament and other new territory. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if I'm correct in understanding that implicit in your reply is that it is not revolutionary (and is mainstream?) to define Old Testament tales, such as Noah and the Flood, as mythological, then that adds weight to the idea that we should use that terminology in the lead.

Conversely, I feel that there exists a POV which sees the story as cold, hard fact. I'd like the lead to represent that spectrum of POV.

I understand that the academic definition of mythology is neutral regarding truth; nevertheless, proponents of the cold, hard fact POV would not express their view in terms of mythology, they would use an entirely different lexicon. I fully agree with what I take to be your position regarding the structure of the lead: the lead should avoid using the editorial voice to endorse labels from either end of the spectrum, and should include an explication of the story per se.--MoreThings (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the book in front of me at the moment, but I think it is more correct to say some Old Testament tales rather than all of them. The flood was one of them--scholars judging it to be much older and having so many similarities with older Mesopotamian flood tales. The current wording of the intro doesn't clarify at all. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Historicity

I'd like to float the idea of including a Historicity section in the article. I think many readers will be interested in a concise examination of the arguments surrounding the historical accuracy of the account of the Flood and the existence of the Ark. The article does seem to cover many of the arguments, but does so in a perhaps slightly prolix style. Here are a couple of points that I found interesting while browsing Google Books.

Two authors. This is touched upon in "The Ark and science in the 19th century" but I think it could perhaps be more explicit.

Illustrated Guide to the Bible "Most authors accept that the flood story is the work of 2 authors...This is revealed by some discrepancies in the story: for example ..."

Scribal culture and the making of the Hebrew Bible"...a composite account integrating narratives from a Yahwistic document(J) and a pristly source (P). Despite occasional attempts to defend the unity of the chapters, the prevailing opinion views the Flood narrative as the work of an editor who conflated two accounts into one"

Fossil record. This is touched upon in "From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment" but could perhaps be more explicit (though not as blunt as in this quote!)

The Skeptic's Dictionary"What evidence is there that all species originated in Turkey? None. But that's what the fossil record should look like if the ark landed on Mt. Ararat".

Location of landing place.

Mercer Dictionary of the Bible states that the claim that the ark's landing place was Turkey "is no older than eleventh-twelfth centuries C.E."

These are just a couple of examples I came across. I doubt strongly that they are the most forceful scientific arguments available or the best sources and, of course, the section should include the scientific arguments supporting the narrative as a factual account.

Couple of miscellaneous quotes

Here are couple of other miscellaneous facts that I thought might be useful to the article, but which are not particularly related to other the other discussions we're having.

Etymology

Shapers of Baptist Thought

The ark or "chest-like boat" built by Noah is not to be confused with the later ark or chest that Moses made in which the tablets of the Law were kept (Exod 25:10, Deut 10:5). The word "ark" derives from the Latin arca "chest" or "cellroom". In Hebrew, the words for the two objects are different. The Hebrew term for Noah's ark (teba) is the same as that for the basket or chest in which the infant Moses' mother kept him hidden and afloat among the reeds of the Nile (Exod 2:3,5)

Other deluges -

1000 Facts on Myths and Legends

List of deluge myths. (And this does class the story as a myth). We maybe don't want to use the list in the article, but it's useful background --MoreThings (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you on this. Though I think the current intro is weak, I think there's a lot of great content in the article now. But there are gaps, and so many aspects that aren't addressed. Given that there really is no comprehensive article here devoted to the Noah's flood story itself, this one seems to have been elected for the job. (Which leaves us challenged how to better transition from the "vessel" opening to this all-encompassing article where the "vessel" itself is only given to one section or so.) Noah's flood redirects to "deluge myths", which isn't perfect either. There is more than enough content out there for Noah's flood for a very comprehensive article dedicated to the topic. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think the name is perfect. If we stick with it I think it would be best if all agreed not to rule out additions on the grounds that they're not directly related to the vessel.--MoreThings (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree, and I have always assumed this article was to deal with the supporting elements of the ark more so than the ark itself (the ark itself is but a tiny aspect of the 'big picture') simply because no other article existed to discuss those supporting elements (including the story, theology, etc). Before anyone suggests it though, I think an article that looks at the bigger picture, like this one is trying to, can adequately address the ark itself, so I'd prefer to keep a single article. Ben (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I apologise if my previous arguments indicated a desire to split the articles. This is not the case.Drew Smith What I've done 05:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to address the Flood also it can be done, but to make room, a lot of sections in the current article would need to be cut back (not cut out). PiCo (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) The article actually discussed the historicity of the Ark/Flood at considerable length, but not under that heading. So I've renamed the section "Historicity" and given chronological titles to the sub-headings. It would be difficult to the point of impossible to find any biblical scholar today who would believe in a historical Noah's ark - such things are best left to Answers in Genesis, but the Answers in genesis people are apologists, not scholars. PiCo (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The various views and new evidence that led scholars to reject the historicity of a global flood is listed nicely. We have a "rejection" without explaining what is being rejected. The reader is expected to already "know" that this "mythology" as (its currently and exclusively labeled) was believed to be historical for some several thousand years. This was not only an interpretation of scripture, but with the onset of enlightenment thinking, many scientists concluded they'd discovered physical evidence as well. There is also almost no coverage of the types of evidence that led scientists at one time to believe science had found such evidence (English geology, for example). Not just this one, but other such articles suffer when editors get so worked up about protecting the readers we overlook the fact we haven't told them enough. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Strike mythology-weather changed. Forecast "storms to continue". Professor marginalia (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your point, but if you're saying we should rehash the arguments in the article on Flood geology, I'd rather not. PiCo (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Forget what AiG says. Read what the article says. We have no description of "historicity" except to describe its rebuttals. Do you think that's normal? To rebut something which has yet to be described? Professor marginalia (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits intro

Whah? Besides jumping the gun on the RFC (does anyone have patience anymore?) - we've now reduced it down purely to Genesis? On the basis of Nuh/Noah? After purging mention of apocrypha? This isn't helpful. We all know that wikipedia's mission is not to act as a gatekeeper against information, right? Professor marginalia (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was (yet another) dispute under way at a high level. Anyway, as the guilty party, let me explain here why I cut the reference to Nuh from the lead (but not, you'll note. from the body of the article). To put it simply, the Nuh story, while obviously based on Noah, is distinctly different. Both stories are theological in intent (literalism changes the genre and says it's historical - an interesting development in its own right, and one we should follow up). For the Koran, Nuh is all about preaching the unity of Allah to the idolators. This was a big deal when Mohammed was writing it - the Arab idolators were his number 1 enemy. The Ark per se isn't really important at all in this story, just the preaching and the oneness of God. The original meaning was quite different, and the Ark was important in its own right - it's a model of the universe (as conceived at the time, of course) - rectangular (the Levantine universe, not the Babylonian), 3 decks (for the 3 levels of the cosmos, the under-earth, the habitable world, and the heavens), with windows on top (the "windows" in the sky which let the sun and moon travel across it each day and night). It's also in opposition to the Babylonian "ark", which had 7 stories (the Babylonians had a 7-story heaven) and was square (modeled on a ziggurat, which in turn was a model of the habitable earth). By comparison, the Nuh-boat is so different as to belong to another story entirely. None of this, by the way, is covered in the article, which simply ignores the symbolism of the original Hebrew Ark.PiCo (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

All very interesting. However, as you note, the article includes Nuh..and the intro should reflect the contents of the article. Your discussion above is very interesting...wouldn't it be cool to have this analysis covered in the article? We are writing an encyclopedia, right? Professor marginalia (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

i don't think anyone jumped the gun on the RfC, but I do agree that if this is covered in the article (which it should be) it should also be mentioned in the lead. That having been said, Pico, you seem quite knowledgeable of the topic. Could you provide good sources that confirm the info you mentioned above? In my opinion, they'd make an excellent contribution to the article. Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For the cosmological symbolism of the Ark, see "What Ship Goes There : The Flood Narratives in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis Considered in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Temple Ideology", by S.W. Holloway, in Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1991, vol. 103, no3, pp. 328-355. The article is in English and can be purchased online. It's cited in other articles and books and so can be regarded as having achieved acceptance. PiCo (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I really can't see the point of opening an RFC designed to achieve consensus if editors are simply going to ignore the discussion and edit the article according to their own whim. Our encyclopedia currently deems it necessary to cite Robert Oden as a source for the fact that Noah's Ark appears in Genesis.--MoreThings (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm confused as to the RfC you're talking about? If it's about the use of narrative/story/myth/mythology, then I think it's fairly certain that, at this point in time at least, the consensus is for story (or narrative) to be used. If it's something else, then my apologies for the confusion! Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I only changed what made absolutely no sense, into something that made sense, that's all. I didn't even look at the ref, only at the English grammar. Look at what it was before I changed it... SAE (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

ps. plus I agree with Wikiwikikid SAE (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This guy (PiCo) comes along and immediately starts ripping the article apart, oblivious to discussion on the talk page. Not a good sign. Good luck with this, y'all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. If consensus is achieved, that's fine, job done. I can't deny that I was annoyed by the recent flurry of editing which seemed to me to ignore a fairly wide-ranging discussion we had going on, but I don't want inflame the situation. I have a couple of books on order at the library so I'll come back and chip in if I find anything useful. There's some other stuff I'm working on, anyway, and I'd like to spend some time on that. --MoreThings (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, the only thing that I'm aware of consensus having been reached on is the myth vs story debate. The other barrage of edits has taken me by surprise as well... Changes of that magnitude should probably be discussed on the talk page first... Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

@Wikiwikikid on RFC-I'm pessimistic. The intro has been been held in a "headlock" over the term-9 months, 12 months, some claim 3 years of edit warring; the switch was made by an IP, without edit summary, who hasn't left an opinion in the rfc-only to be changed again within hours. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>The intro needs to allude to the other Noah texts. We need to stop fiddling about with sourced claims without paying attention to the source. An inline to Oden to verify that Noah's Ark is found in Genesis is silliness. "Species" isn't in Genesis, and how "kind" can be thought to relate to "species" is a point of contention in creationism. We should avoid that can of worms by avoiding "species" in the intro. "All life" outside the Ark wasn't killed, according to the story. Only life of "flesh", "whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land". Not to be pedantic, but the story is very spare yet does depict the surviving olive tree. Since so much of the scholarly analyses of the story (mythical, archaeological, philological, theological, literary, historical, what have you) finds significance in such finer points, we should be extra careful that generalizations are appropriate. There will be contradictions in the Genesis account, contraditions in the various religious traditions, etc., but we want to avoid adding contradictory content of our own making into the mix. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The current version has one sentence lead:

"Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach) is the story of a large vessel featured in Genesis 6-9 of the Hebrew Bible.[1]

Compare the level of description and/or substantive content conveyed in this opening to that given in the openings of Tower of Babel, Tree of Life, and The Cat in the Hat. Even if we're agreed to move to "is a story" from "is a vessel", "story about a vessel" is a step backwards. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

agreed. when i changed it, I did it quickly fully realizing that the discussion was still ongoing here, but also needing to fix the grammatical nonsense that it had become. SAE (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Noah's Ark" may be the title of a story, but the ark itself is not a story. So I suggest the following: Noah's ark ... is the subject of an ancient story about a large vessel featured in Genesis 6-9 of the Hebrew Bible. Greensburger (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that. Just rattling off some of the significant story elements here from the Genesis story that I've assembled skimming refs, and list some of the "how so's" that make them significant:

Ark-a vessel, its significance within the story is that it was build according to specs given by God, and that it protected Noah, his family, and the animal collection as the rest of humanity and the animal kingdom perish - broader cultural significance outside the story is that it's an artifact many have tried to find, people were curious about the practicalities involved (how could it hold everything, etc), some theological connection to later church etc.

Flood-significance within the story, it's catastrophic in size and scope, God used the flood to destroy his creation, God vows not to destroy through flood again. Significance outside the confines of story-it has religious implications in the 1st covenant, it was assumed fact in western tradition for many centuries, spurred investigations to find geological or other scientific evidence of the flood

Noah-within the story, he's a "righteous man", God elects him to survive and delivers the promise to him. Outside the story, in Judeo-Christian tradition, all mankind were said to descend from him and are to some extent inheritors of Noah's bond and the covenant, and Noah's considered a prophet

Animals-within the story, some specs are detailed (male and female, "two" of each kind or "seven" pairs of some kinds, birds and crawlers, clean and unclean). Outside the story-interpretation of early fossils, 1 focus of religious anti-evolutionism, implications for Jewish law in terms of human dominion over animals, dietary laws

What this says to me is we want to avoid getting boxed in saying "story about a vessel" without squeezing Noah, God, the animals and flood in alongside. So borrowing from Garden of Eden, I was thinking along the lines of something like,

"Noah's Ark is the vessel described in the Book of Genesis that sheltered Noah, his family, and a vast collection of animals from a catastrophic flood sent by God to destroy his corrupted creation. The story of Noah's Ark features in the sacred texts, mythology, and theodicy of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and is often used to explain X. In addition to the Genesis account, allusions to Noah's Ark are found in the religious scriptures A, B, C and D. It also has strong affinities to the ancient Babylonian flood myth as recounted in the The Epic of Gilgamesh, and remains one of the oldest and most well known stories in western culture."

Or something close to this. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

One thing I have noticed is that it doesn't help to ascribe a level of quality to a word. In other words it's not conducive to AGF to label a word "better" (or "worse") than another word. It turns the debate into a contest and could cause hard feelings. A word may be more or less appropriate due to context but words are not better or worse than other words. And, all due respect, but the current phrasing is fine but it hasn't resolved the "myth/story" debate. It just moved it to the second paragraph. Padillah (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ararat

Just in case the subject comes up, this change [4] I'm sure is well-meaning, but is irrelevant to this article. Which modern country "owns" the mountains of Ararat has nothing to do with the ancient Noah's Ark story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC re: "mythology" characterization

I was told by Xeno to take this issue to RFC. All pertinent info can be found at EAR, and ANI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew R. Smith (talk • contribs) 11:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, you seek comment on the labelling of the Noah's Ark article as mythology, yes? Please clarify and perhaps elucidate your argument as to why you feel it should be characterized otherwise. –xeno ^talk 16:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

One thought I have on this is that, if there is a dispute (outside of Wikipedia, preferably discussed by anthropology or theology academia) over the terminology used to characterize Noah's Ark, then the article should discuss such a dispute. I suggested to Drew at User talk:Mendaliv#Out of hand that take a shot at looking for such a dispute, because I'm very confident there's consensus in academia that Noah's Ark is a myth just as much as any other deluge myth. Why this is specifically a problem can be explained as systemic bias; most people who edit Wikipedia are Anglo-American English speakers of white Christian descent- I guarantee you there is, has been, or will be a dispute on characterizing another current major religion's deluge myth as such. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mendaliv. Treating Genesis/the Flood/the Ark in a different way from any other religion's creation and/or deluge myth would amount to Christian Exceptionalism, a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The intro is worded such that "mythology" refers to collected stories found in the Abrahamic religions, not to the Ark itself. The article suffers a bit of an identity crisis, because the intro sentence says it refers to a "vessel" (the kind of vessel isn't stated, it is treated as riddle with clues given in para 2) and the bulk of the article itself is devoted to versions of the story where the Ark appears. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess one reason to not call it a myth is that it would tick the heck out of the christains who belive it's true. If you call all other stories of holy works myths, then you could call The Flood a myth, but if not then call it what you call the other stories.Lukefan3 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

---

wikt:mythology gives its core definition as "The collection of myths of a people, concerning the origin of the people, history, deities, ancestors and heroes." Can anybody deny that Genesis concerns the Jewish people's "origin … history, deities, ancestors and heroes"?

Likewise www.merriam-webster.com defines "mythology" as:

1. "an allegorical narrative"
   • This would gel well with the non-literal/historical way that the majority of Christians view Genesis (see #Modern Christian (Jewish & Muslim) views on Noah's Ark above)
2. "a body of myths: as a: the myths dealing with the gods, demigods, and legendary heroes of a particular people b: mythos 2 <cold war mythology> "
   • The first part of this is very close to the wikt definition. The definition of 'mythos' is largely overlapping with #1 above
3. "a branch of knowledge that deals with myth"
   • Not particularly applicable, but not in any way misleading.
4. "a popular belief or assumption that has grown up around someone or something : myth 2a <defective mythologies that ignore masculine depth of feeling — Robert Bly>"
   • Not particularly applicable, but (given the antiquity of the Book of Genesis) not likely to mislead (as such "popular belief[s] or assumption[s]" are generally of recent creation).

As such, the use of the word appears to be fully justified -- it is neither inaccurate nor misleading. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

OED:

1. a. The exposition of a myth or myths; the interpretation of fables; a book of such expositions. Obs.

b. The symbolic or allegorical meaning of a fable, etc. Obs.

2. A mythical story, a myth. In early use more widely: a parable, an allegory. Obs.

3. a. As a mass noun: mythical stories or traditional beliefs collectively; myth.

b. A body or collection of myths, esp. those relating to a particular person or thing, or belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.

c. In extended use: the received wisdom concerning a particular subject; the collective or personal ideology or set of beliefs which underpins or informs a particular point of view.

4. The branch of knowledge that deals with myths; the study of myths.

Nothing there to render it inaccurate or misleading either. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

---

It IS inaccurate and it IS misleading. You could solve all of this by substituting "story" for "mythology". Refusal to do so is POV-pushing wrapped in academic conceit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Bald assertions without any substantiation are pretty worthless. For instance, I could just as easily state "'Story' IS inaccurate and 'story' IS misleading." Without substantiation neither stament is worth anything. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You know full well that the term "mythology" equates to "fairy tales" in general usage. "Story" is a neutral term, used by the religious and the skeptical alike. "Mythology" is a POV-push by those who wish to implicitly say "F.U." to religious people who might be reading the article. Insisting on calling the Bible stories fairy tales does not enhance wikipedia's reputation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

We just had an RFC on this in the very recent past, and ArbCom was even asked to step in after people who wanted to remove "myth" or "mythology" from the article couldn't get consensus to do so, and ArbCom rightly rejected that request. Someone else coming along with a very strong opinion based upon mere personal belief and an appalling lack of knowledge about the topic in general doesn't mean we have to entertain the issue yet again. It's settled, over, done with. We shouldn't have to have a constant war over this because one side refuses to admit defeat. DreamGuy (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll probably participate in the RFC once it's properly constructed (at the moment, parameters are very unclear to me). One thought: has anyone ever suggested a footnote on "mythology" explaining the word's academic/specific meaning in this context? It might help readers and any editors that might be confusing "mythology" with "fairy tale" etc and perhaps mollify some concerns...Bali ultimate (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you first explain how a culture's myths (including its creation and/or deluge myths) are qualitatively different from a culture's fairy tales? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A distinction could be drawn between them based upon the culture's own perception. Fairy tales are generally accepted as not literally true, but merely allegorical narratives. Myths are different in that belief in the literal truth of those narratives is more prevalent, and is generally respected if not accepted; the characterization of those narratives as "allegorical" tends to imply their literal falsity. The use of a term that by definition characterizes this biblical narrative as "allegorical" is seen by many editors as an implicit denial of the possibility of the narrative's literal truth. In this instance, the use of the term "biblical narrative" rather than "myth" would convey the idea that the material is religious, cultural, and at this point at least neither demonstrably true nor false, while avoiding any implicit statement as to truth or falsity. Steveozone (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Except a large chunk of Christianity, including its largest denomination (approx 1/2 of all Christians), the Catholic Church, accept that (in the case of Catholics, the first 11 chapters of) Genesis is "not literally true". Incidentally, as a matter of historical and scientific fact, most of Genesis is "demonstrably … false". All mythology is "religious, cultural" -- how is Christian mythology and Genesis exceptional? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if we're going there, a large chunk of humanity would deny that there is any literal truth to Noah's Ark, or Genesis for that matter. A significant chunk of humanity feel otherwise. Why use a term that insults a significant chunk of humanity, by referring to religious narrative with the same name ("fairy tale") used for stories which are universally regarded as not literally true? The point is that there is a big difference between "fairy tale" or "myth." As for the problem with "biblical narrative" (below); fine, point taken. "Religious narrative?" In any event, it's unavoidable that somewhere in the article there will be a list of faiths to which this narrative is pertinent, and the line-drawing problems (I agree, though, that it should not be in the lede if it can be avoided). Steveozone (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

On top of that, it's really poor form to introduce these sorts of topics by the works they're contained in for at least two reasons. First, your own western bias has neglected the Qu'ran in choosing the term biblical narrative, and I don't think it's practical to include a laundry list of works mentioning Noah's Ark in the first sentence - where would we draw the line etc would be another source of dispute. The second reason is best demonstrated. Which do you prefer:

Duat (or Tuat) (also called Akert, Amenthes, or Neter-khertet), according to the Amduat, is the underworld.

Duat (or Tuat) (also called Akert, Amenthes, or Neter-khertet), according to the Egyptian mythology, is the underworld.

As for this RfC in general, I can't believe xeno suggested this. xeno, didn't you have something to do with the last RfC? Something to do with medcab? Why would you suggest this course of action before recommending Drew to the archives? As for Drew, allow me to suggest what xeno didn't: check the archives. Also, leave your belief baggage at the door. Being so disruptive isn't making you any friends outside of those who have a vested interest in the article, so stop being a douche bag and engage in calm rational discussion - the rational bit is important since you need to be ready to reasonably concede a point if it comes to that. Ben (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I wasn't involved with any of the previous attempts at DR on this. Drew had brought an issue to WP:EAR and WP:ANI with regards to etiquette in conversations elsewhere on this page (perhaps not entirely baseless wrt your above "douche bag" comment!). His main concern at EAR/ANI seemed to be the personal attacks (so I suggested WP:WQA), but then he stated that he "made the argument that the term myth does not apply to Noahs Ark, using the definition medaliv provided. My arguments were promptly ignored. All I want is for the article to use a more NPOV terminology", so I suggested that RFC would be a better venue if he is setting aside the NPA complaint. I agree that there has been a lot in the foregoing on this, and this RFC isn't likely to create a new result. –xeno ^talk 18:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, if you haven't been involved in any previous DR on this, then I apologise, I must have misremembered. In that case you can't be blamed for recommending an RfC, and while I agree it isn't likely to create a new result, it is likely to waste people's time. That is quite frustrating since this RfC is seriously equivalent to an editor starting an RfC on the evolution article being non-neutral because it doesn't explain that evolution is just a theory, after being recommended to do so. Ugh. Ben (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree: if anything, "mythology" is the correct and accurate term for any fantastic religious story. In particular, we can't very well say that minor religions, such as Asatru (Norse paganism) or Greek paganism, etc, get their works classified as mythology, but major ones don't. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with many of the commentators above that "mythology" can be properly applied, at least in some sense. However, trying to be objective here and look at the bigger picture, the push for "mythology" in Genesis related articles is a fairly recent and somewhat methodical development, one encompassing revisions in the wording to several policy/guidelines, and resulting in a lot of instability in the few articles revised. So-called "dead religions" don't have living adherents here to object to their sacred stories being labeled "mythology". There's inconsistency in the use of the label "mythology" in other articles besides this one focusing on the earliest stories of living religions. (see Manu (Hinduism), Adam and Eve, Tower of Babel, Abraham, etc) So I predict s*** storms will soon enough spread there from here. "Myth" is by definition a "sacred narrative". But replacing "myth" with "sacred narrative" triggers cries of "POV pushing" from many among the pro-mythology side, so I say there's plenty enough "oversensitivity" and "insensitivity" all way round. I also suspect, after reading many "mythology" supporters and objectors both reveal here they don't know what "mythology" technically means, that the usage here has fallen short of "educating the reader" about mythology, and simply pushes large numbers of readers' already-held "bias-buttons". After seeing policy/guideline policy revisions made in tandem with controversies over the term cropping up here - I think there's a long and contentious history behind the use of the term that warrants sorting out. This is a long, drawn out affair, and I haven't put it all together yet. But looking at the months of edit warring over this, as well as the equivocal polls and RFC's I've peered so far in the archives, I doubt another round of RFCs will end this. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen the phrase "sacred narrative" used outside of a few Wikipedia discussions, and, indeed, it has only 1/10000th the google hits of "mythology" Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Professor marginalia, of course this RfC won't end the whining. So long as we use poor terminology that is inconsistent with specialised references right down to general works like Encyclopedia Britannica and even children's books, people will try and bring this article into line. As long as the term myth/mythology is used in articles that ignorant lazy literalists (see above) hold dear, they will loudly complain. Of course, this is nothing new - we can all expect the same in articles like Evolution, Age of the Universe, etc. It's unfortunate, but pandering to such behaviour isn't going to help, and will turn Wikipedia into a mess in the process. Ben (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Just responding here to a question on my thoughts since the threading is getting messy. I proposed a footnote on "mythology" because, as one or two have pointed out above, "mythology" does have a less pejorative/dismissive connotation in at least some contexts (academic discussion of religion and associated cultural beliefs frequently treats "myth," as something like "a common story accepted by some as history") that may not be commonly understood. "Mythology" is a different, more respectful term than calling something a "fairy tale" or even a "legend" in that context. I personally don't care if there is a sentence that says Noah's Ark is part of the creation story" or one that says Noah's ark is part of the creation myth", but that given there are people who have strong views on this issue, that a footnote might have represented some progress that everyone could partially agree on.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is a footnote better than the already existing wikilink? Both require the reader to click, and I'd prefer not to be using footnotes for hidden messages. Ben (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

My thought was that it wouldn't be "hidden" but would be right there at the bottom of the page immediately letting readers know what the thinking behind that word is right here (i suspect someone that might object to use of the word in this article would be far more likely to read the footnote then to click through to the separate article on "myth"). But no matter -- 3-4 very rapid responses seems to indicate that among editors of longer involvement here that concerns would not be satisfied by this compromise idea.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

@Shoemaker's Holiday: far be it for me to take issue with the almighty "google hit" counters, but yes, a myth, according to academic authorities in the field of culture and mythology, is a sacred narrative. Quoting the article here, "In the field of folkloristics, a myth is conventionally defined as a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form". I took several courses on the subject from an instructor acknowledged until his death to be the foremost authority in the field-he used this definition. This definition is undoubtedly the most accepted, and would certainly be accepted by most authorities studying Genesis myths. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

@Ben-it would help reduce conflicts to characterize the dispute dispassionately. This doesn't have to be a forced choice between "poor terminology" and "specialized references". So starting with Encyclopedia Britannica, the introductory paragraph to the article about Noah reads, "the hero of the biblical Flood story in the Old Testament book of Genesis... A synthesis of at least three biblical source traditions, Noah is the image of the righteous man made party to a covenant with Yahweh, the God of Israel, in which nature’s future protection against catastrophe is assured." (irrelevant detail omitted). The flood story itself is called a "myth" in the 5th paragraph or so, after a discussion of the comparative analysis with older flood myths. This frees the reader from having to guess what kind of meaning is intended by the use of "mythology", which readers are naturally first inclined to do the way it's used here. The lead here can imply that the Abrahamic religions are mythology, that their texts are mythology, etc. And like I said, there are strong POV pushers pushing both for and against changing this terminology. That somebody's ox is gored isn't a good reason to remove the language. But many of the comments left in support of it reveal some preference for the term for exactly that reason. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was a choice between poor terminology and specialised references, I simply said if we used poor terminology people will try to fix it. I'm sure neither of us disagree with that. So, to characterise this debate, as dispassionately as I can, this comes down to: Does the introductory sentence need tweaking, and if so, can we find a better replacement introductory sentence? As for the first question, the overwhelming response to this is yes, I don't like it/it's not neutral or some other version of that, and it will cut down complaints. Without anything to back up the non-neutrality claim, I think both are woefully inadequate reasons to move onto the second question. You mentioned you've looked at some of the archives, so you can image why some of us might be reluctant to start considering the second question with a decent answer to the first - hence the first questions necessity if we're all to 'get along'. Supposing we have reason to look for a better alternative, any suggestions obviously must satisfy the better requirement. I suppose part of this is built into satisfying the problem raised in the answer to the first question, but in considering alternatives other issues may crop up and they must be considered along side the reason we're looking for the alternative.

To sum up, I see nothing wrong with the current introductory sentence, and I'm reluctant to look for alternatives without good reason for doing so. Ben (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a suitable section to go into it, but the article suffers an identity crisis, as I said. I think this may result from trying to stay vague in order to encompass all the Abrahamic traditions and texts. The intro remains jumpy and confused in part because so much energy and attention is diverted by the fracas over "mythology". An unacquainted reader would likely become lost in this beginning. Is this article about the vessel itself, or the story it's featured in? What kind of vessel? Who is Noah? "The flood" is first spoken of as if readers were expected to know there was one from the clues left with God's intention to "destroy the world" and with the still undescribed "vessel". The subject/object is confused in the last sentence of paragraph 2, thus confusing who promised what to who in the covenant. The "elaborations" paragraph alludes to "ranging from hypothetical solutions to practical problems" with examples never mentioned again in the article. The fact that the story was once widely viewed as having historical basis has to be read "between the lines" and last paragraph inadvertently confuses the picture even more by implying all those who thought it was historical were "literalists", and all those who remain "literalists" are "exploring" Ararat. It's even vague again about what these "explorers" might be looking for exactly. The vessel? With all the attention given the intro over "mythology", my hunch is that these much bigger problems in the wording of the lead have gone unnoticed. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The given defenition for myth that I was supplied with states, "dealing with the supernatural, or a creation story". I see nothing supernatural or creation centric about a boat. Perhaps if the aricle was titled Noah, or worldwide flood, or how god led the animals onto the boat, it could be labeled as a myth. But the article is titled "Noah's Ark", Noah being a possessive noun. So the article is essentialy about a boat.Drew Smith What I've done 03:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Example, do we label the titanic story a myth? You have no proof that it ever existed. Just some old newspaper articles, that could very well have been mislead. You've never seen it. Does that make it a myth?Drew Smith What I've done 03:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A divinely-commanded "boat", for an impossibly-Herculean task (preservation of all terrestrial lifeforms) necessitated by a divinely-created global flood (that science and recorded history show as not having taken place) is related to the "supernatural"? You betcha. We have a mountain of documentary evidence that the Titanic existed, and sank (including the wreck itself). We have no evidence that the Ark existed beyond the myth in Genesis, and strong evidence that (i) the global flood that is purported to have necessitate it didn't occur & (ii) that its stated purpose was impossible given its limited size & resources. Do we label your example as ludicrous? You betcha. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitary break

<---The article is about the boat itseld, not it's task, not who commanded it, and not whether or not the flood happened. Hence the title.Drew Smith What I've done 04:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let me clarify- I said dealing with the supernatural, a creation story or other didactic tale which is used to enculturate the people in a society. Noah's Ark completely fits that last portion; it's didactic (it teaches a lesson) and it's used in the process of Christian enculturation. And the story itself is arguably supernatural. Arguing that this article is on the ship rather than the story is not sensible, and even so, the ship itself is mythical (or "mytho-historical" if it's shown to have actually existed).

And with regards to the comparison to the story of the Titanic sinking, you could say that the story itself has been mythologized. Various films, books, etc. have been published which take a historical event and create literature from it. The practice of creating mythology is an extension of this process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In regards to DRS's edit above, this article doesn't seem to be solely about the boat to the exclusion of all other material. Dayewalker (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The expression "Noah's Ark" typically refers to the story, not just to the boat itself. If the article were about the boat it would be about one paragraph long. And the comparison to the Titanic is silly. For one thing, it still exists, and can be visited if necessary. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's my quick 2 cents: the Ark's historical existence is unverified any further than being a story in the Bible, and even still the term "mythology" does not automatically mean false. I think it is quite clear that the "mythology" label is appropriate in this article.— ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 07:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a POV-pushing conceit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It is no more POV-pushing to classify Noah's Ark as Abrahamic mythology than it is to classify the Trojan War as Greek mythology. Both involve an unverifiable supernatural element and are not historically accepted. Even most Christians do not accept the Noah's Ark historicity claim.— ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 08:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The claim that "most Christians don't" is as absurd (i.e. as uncited) as the complainant's original claim that "all Christians do". And saying "mythology" instead of "story" is a POV-push in order to dismiss or marginalize those readers who do believe in it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As has already been cited above, the Catholic Church does not accept the historicity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis[5] (which includes the Flood & the Ark). Given that the Catholic Church is approximately half of Christianity, and a number of other denominations do likewise (don't have sources for them as yet though), the claim that "most Christians do not" would appear to be on solid ground. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not on any kind of ground except "shaky" or even "quicksand". The Catholic Church also officially condemns any kind of contraception (other than the so-called "rhythm method"), yet many Catholics use it. The official position of a church's leaders in no way demonstrates what "most Christians" do or do not believe. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The contraception issue is easily distinguishable from the Genesis issue. The former directly affects individual Catholics lives at a very practical level, the latter merely relates to the way to interpret a several-thousand-year-old book -- which is highly unlikely to have any discernable impact on their lives, so have no compelling reason to reject Catholic teachings. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

How you think individual Catholics view Biblical teachings is strictly your personal opinion, and your easy dismissal of the Bible's age is useful in revealing your POV bias on this matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"How [I] think individual Catholics view Biblical teachings" is no more "personal opinion"/WP:OR than your claim that their rejection of church teachings on contraception in some way leads to rejection of the church's teaching on the interpretation of Genesis. I have presented a WP:RS stating that the Catholic Church rejects the historicity of Genesis. If you want to cite a RS stating widespread dissent on this point by individual Catholics, then you are welcome to do so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"A set of stories, traditions, or beliefs associated with a particular group or the history of an event, arising naturally or deliberately fostered."

—Dictionary.com[6]

To the right is one of several definitions/interpretations of "mythology". The Noah's Ark story fits into this category, plain and simple. It is not meant as an insult, as, again, "mythology" does not automatically equate falsehood. Maybe there's a way we can incorporate into the article a note that makes this abundantly clear?— ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 08:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it IS meant as an insult. You're using dictionary definitions to justify POV-pushing. "Story" would do just as well, but that wouldn't sufficiently lecture the reader and dismiss the story as "only a myth". You can quote dictionaries all day long, but the average reader equates "myth" with "fairy tale" - which is exactly what this article's writers believe Noah's Ark to be. How about putting the reader first, instead of trying to push the liberal/atheist viewpoint, which is what's going on here with the insistence on "mythology" in the lead instead of a neutral term like "story", and which leads to wikipedia living down to its reputation as being dominated by liberals, atheists and academic snobs. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Who's side are you on? While I appreciate the support, weren't you one of the people dogging me for suggesting basically the same thing?Drew Smith What I've done 09:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm on the side of trying to keep wikipedia from looking stupid or politically slanted to the average reader. And maybe you missed my earlier comment that "you've ALL got it wrong". I have yet to see anyone here provide citations demonstrating what individual Christians think; as opposed to what the church leaders think, which is misleading at best, and largely irrelevant overall. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

PM, maybe we can seriously work on the article after these two stupid each other to death. Their ignorance and noise isn't going to help the article, and will likely drive constructive editors away from the talk page. Ben (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In short, once we've gotten tired of the debate, you'll get to keep your POV-pushing in the article.
I'm well aware that you all have taken ownership of the article. You're wrong, but you own it, and that's the reality. It's unfortunate that the best interests of wikipedia take second place to your desire to push your point of view, but that happens here from time to time. In the long run, though, ownership of articles tends be defeated. So your POV-pushing victory is only temporary. And your characterization of triple-digit IQ's as "stupid" does no harm to its targets, but it does diminish you. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, the suggestion that everyone here who doesn't oppose the use of mythology is trying to push a POV comes off as assumptive of bad faith. While I'd like to assume the assumption of good faith, I can't reconcile that reasoning as such. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Mythology" = "POV-pushing" — the WP:TRUTH according to Baseball Bugs. No sources or other substantiation needed, Baseball Bugs hath spoken. Proof by assertion anybody? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You know full well that to the general public, "mythology" is a synonym for "fairy tales". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I went to Google and entered the common expression "just a myth", and got "about 692,000" entries. I could list them all here for you, but that could take some time, and I have to go to work soon. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem being that the scientific and historical consensus is that Genesis is no less "just a myth" than Greek mythology, Norse mythology, etc, etc. Why should Christian mythology be privileged over that of other religions? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Because you don't likely have large numbers of believers in Zeus and Jupiter and Odin reading wikipedia, while you do likely have large numbers of believers in Moses, Jesus and Mohammad reading wikipedia, who will be inclined to think that wikipedia is being run by atheists, and is therefore not to be trusted. How will that help futher wikipedia's best interests? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That is the worst sort of argumentum ad populum. Just because there are more members of the Abrahamic religions than there are of Asatru, that makes the creation-story of the former 'not mythology', while the creation-story of the latter is 'mythology' (and is in fact called that by its article's title)? I cannot see any basis within policy for such a view. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and until Wikipedia burns Barack Obama in effigy on a daily basis, nothing we do will make religious conservatives less "inclined to think that wikipedia is being run by atheists" (and the religious liberals already know that Genesis is "just a myth"). I therefore see no reason to dilute policy in the vain attempt to try to win them over. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Dismissing religious beliefs as "just a myth" does not help wikipedia's credibility. I wish the editors here would focus on wikipedia's primary purpose, as an encyclopedia for the masses, as their primary goal, rather than insisting on pretending it's an "academic" encyclopedia, and using their spin on dictionary definitions to justify POV-pushing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Who here is dismissing someone's religious beliefs as "just a myth"? And are we not dismissing the religious beliefs of the ancients as "just myths" if we treat this differently? And I'm not sure you're right about Wikipedia's goal- it's just an encyclopedia, not one for the masses specifically (else, we'd be seeing WP:NOT deletion rationales for quite a few mathematics articles). Finally, if you think the description of Noah's Ark as a myth is POV-stilted, then find a source to back it up and describe the POV in the article, and a summary can be made in the lead section. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have already demonstrated to you that there is a wide understanding that "myth" equates to "fairy tale", yet you insist on retaining that loaded word in the lead paragraph. How else am I to interpret that insistence, except as POV-pushing? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And I have already challenged editors to objectively (i.e. taking the actual meaning of the terms, not applying subjective emotional baggage to them) distinguish between a creation myth such as Genesis and a "fairy story", in any way beyond an invalid argumentum ad populum. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You continue to hide behind one definition of the term as an excuse to keep a loaded word in the intro. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(i) Please read my comments above where I discuss nine definitions of "mythology". (ii) Your response is largely a non sequitor as it isn't relevant to "distinguish[ing] between a creation myth such as Genesis and a 'fairy story'". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

@Ben-I can tune it out. The smoke will clear more quickly when editors stop trying to score irrelevant points. Professor marginalia (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The only point that matters is to not make wikipedia look like it's run by a particular interest group. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm sure this goal is shared by many on both sides of the dispute, and it's good to establish some common ground. Professor marginalia (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Unfortunately, right now this article looks like it's owned by people who think religion is a fairy tale. See what you can do about fixing that. Start by replacing the loaded word "mythology" with the neutral word "story" in the lead paragraph. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Baseball Bugs on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horneldinkrag (talk • contribs) 13:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: The preceding user is now on permanent leave at the Stalkland Islands. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: I am not satisfied that that we've accomplished what we need to do, in part because the definition of mythology as it's meant here isn't well understood. That's not to say "story" measures up completely either. I'm giving it some thought, but I see nothing to be gained by simply warring over the word. It's a waste of time. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

My concern over this is that it's used in the lead, when a neutral term like "story" would be better. The full extent of the mythology, along with why it's called that, is reasonable for the body of the article. But I'm pretty well convinced now that nothing I say is going to make any difference. P.S. Don't ignore "Erik the Redlink", just above. I pay these guys cash money for this kind of support. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Baseball Bugs as well. Over the last few years there are many, many more people who believe this, then there are who think "mythology" should be in there, but they come and go because the backlash by the few who patrol this article is huge. I hope we can have some now who stay around to see this through. Mythology is so loaded. SAE (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: So sorry, but Bugs is displaying his ignorance here. "Myth" makes no "true" or "false" value judgment at all. Those who think it does, are ignorant. "Myth" is accurate and NPOV. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The common use of the word is generally understood to mean false. I'm not sure I agree that story is a neutral word either. Perhaps narrative?Drew Smith What I've done 19:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm recalling my childhood collection of books called Bible Stories, in which the entire Bible is presented (and restated in elementary school language, along with many colorful illustrations) as if it were literally true. However, "narrative" would be fine, as long as you don't use that word too many times in the opening paragraph. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Which has what to do with what we are talking about? Of course people with a POV that it's literally true are going to present them as true stories. DreamGuy (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Drew, honestly it doesn't matter what you "think" only what can be verified. Story does not imply false as myth does. Story is academically established for this kind of situation. However, I don't object to narrative either. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, "story" is vague. "Myth" is academically established for this kind of situation. And anyone who thinks that mythology, as used here, implies flase can always click the link to read actual information on the topic and be less ignorant. That's what encyclopedias are for: to educate people, not to write down to their preconceived ignorance on the topic. DreamGuy (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly "story" is academically established (as other academically established encyclopedias use it). There's a difference in vague and neutral. I believe story is neutral, not vague. I do not argue that myth cannot imply something other than false (I know otherwise). However, the fact remains that (as has been shown by several other editors) myth can and often does imply false (more so than just a narrative of some particular culture). As such, this lends to a biased POV. Either way, I think the current wording, using "narrative" is both neutral and sufficient. Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not about true or false, it's about fact or fiction. OED:

1. a. A purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions, or events, and embodying some popular idea concerning natural or historical phenomena.

..b. in generalized use. Also, an untrue or popular tale, a rumour (colloq.).

2. A fictitious or imaginary person or object.

To call it a myth is to call it a fiction.

To my mind, narrative goes too far towards connoting factuality. Story leaves the door wide open that the tale is fictional, but doesn't rule out that it is factual.--MoreThings (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Story also has a somewhat convoluted defenition. Example, when johnny lies to his mom she asks him "Are you telling stories again?" However, I'm all for story or narrative, as either is better than myth.Drew Smith What I've done 23:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC Comment: I'd prefer to see the opening sentence re-phrased; 'featured in the mythology of Abrahamic religions' is quite broad and doesn't really contextualize the boat that well. Something like 'a large vessel that is featured in accounts of a world-wide deluge in the Abrahamic literary tradition' would provide better context. As to use of the term myth- my main objection is that its current usage in the intro is not particularly explanatory. While one dictionary definition of myth is neutral on the topic of factuality, we should remember that the term is heavily colored by its secondary meanings and connotations; I would rather make it explicit that WP takes no position on the factual status of mythical objects and persons instead of just hoping that readers will know the way that it is intended. Later in the article, for instance, we have this sentence: "The Ark's history from fact to myth can be traced through various editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica.", with examples that make it clear that 'myth' in this sense is being used as a synonym for 'not factual'. That it is an element of Abrahamic mythology certainly should be mentioned in the article, and the relation to other flood myths; however, my feeling is that the current intro pushes the term 'myth' to the forefront in a way that is not particularly illuminating for readers. Why not anticipate and clarify an obvious point of confusion and potential contention by using the equally neutral terms 'story', 'narrative', 'account', etc., rather than just insisting that our readers should spend more time with a dictionary? --Clay Collier (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Good catch! Yeah, that's not good. It's an WP:OR opinion drawn from the primary sources, unsourced to a secondary source, and puts to lie the idea that the article is using the "academic" definition of myth. Out it goes. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)