Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Noah's Ark. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Woods and Trees

I have been thinking about this discussion and come to the realisation that a very important point has got lost amongst all the trees of semantics and POVs: what is this article actually supposed to be about?

Is this an article about the history of the ark? The science of the ark?

Or is it, in fact, an article on a religious topic?

Ben and others have made it clear that they do not feel that there is any scientific or historical evidence for the story. Most of us would agree. Therefore, I can only conclude that this must be an article on the religious story of Noah's Ark. That is, after all, the only sense in which the story is notable.

That being the case, I am left asking myself the question: What the hell are we doing discussing 'mythology' in the opening section?

The question of the mythology or historicity of a religious topic should only exist within a sub-section dedicated to the historicity. The opening paragraphs need only state which religious texts the story is found in and summarise the story. The following sections should discuss the narrative from the perspective of relevant religions. Only then should we find a place for discussions on the historicity of the story (where I wholly agree that its mythological nature should be given the greatest weight). For an example with similar levels of historicity see Sodom and Gomorrah, which is laid out in exactly this manner.

Ben asks for a good reason why he shouldn't alter the text to include the word 'mythology'. Here is a perfectly sound reason not to: It is irrelevant and unnecessary and it introduces the question of the historicity of the ark in completely the wrong place.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the term "mythology" does not explicitly deal with the historicity of a subject. Following the primary definition of the OED, a myth is "A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces". From my own POV, the discussion above boils down to whether the article uses this widely-understood definition in the article, or it uses a more ambiguous description that avoids offending those who (for some reason) equate myth with "false". An encyclopaedia needs to say what kind of "thing" Noah's Ark is, and the term "myth" pretty much encapsulates it. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 10:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

does not explicitly deal leaves open does implicitly deal. My point is that the opening section should not include references of any type (implicit, explicit, correctly or incorrectly perceived (from the definition of the word)) to the historicity of the subject. Nor, for that matter, should make any reference to the status of the subject in any context other than it being a religious story. If this were a historical/scientific article then such references would be required - but on the other hand, the article would be little more than a stub. This is an article on a religious subject - therefore, its status (i.e. Is it a myth? Is it historical? Is there any scientific evidence? etc) should be reserved for a later section dealing with that status. I entirely agree that "An encyclopaedia needs to say what kind of "thing" Noah's Ark is" - but the correct place to do that is not in the first section of the article.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

FimusTauri, if you're proposing a re-write, would you like to outline a list of section headings? PiCo (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, PiCo, that you have made me pause in my tracks and think a moment. I wasn't proposing a re-write (not a substantial one, at any rate). I was attempting to point out that the inclusion of the word 'mythology' in the opening section would be inappropriate - since the current version does not include that word, then no re-write would be required.

However, as I say, you have made me think about the possibility. I will mull the idea over and get back to you later. I am reluctant to make any concrete suggestions until this 'mythology' issue is resolved.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I must hold my hand up to an error in what I have written above. Having looked more carefully at WP's style guidelines, I realise that the introduction should include criticisms and controversies regarding the subject. I still maintain, however, that all I have said above applies fully to the opening sentence and ask the reader to substitute that phrase for all occurences of 'first section' in the above.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look at this suggested draft by Vassyana, the mediator for his article, you will see that it conforms well to the WP style guidelines. The opening sentence is neutral but the main POVs are then introduced. My version of the opening sentence, which i consider more neutral and accurate, is underneath. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

PiCo, I have thought about the idea of a re-write. On the one hand there has clearly been a lot of hard work (and a lot of discussion) gone into this article and I am reluctant to 'undo' all the excellent work that it contains. On the other hand, I do feel that the various arguments and debates have caused the article to lose some of its logical flow and structure. Rather than a 're-write', I would definitely advocate a 're-structuring' (which would necessitate a degree of re-writing, but would largely involve 'shuffling' sections around.) I also feel, while the debate about the word 'mythology' is ongoing and the article is locked, it may be useful to us all to examine the structure of the article and, assuming a consensus can be achieved on that structure, we can then re-examine the individual parts in the context of such a structure. I have begun work on what I feel should be a starting point for the structure, but invite comment from yourself and others. If the general consesus is that no re-structuring is required then I will drop it.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to consider a restructuring. But as you say, we have to see what the general feeling is. PiCo (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have placed a copy of what I feel should be the general structure at User:FimusTauri/NA2 so people can have some idea of where I think the article should go.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Opening sentence

The opening sentence needs to give some context. There are two opening sentences being argued over and I'd like to develop consensus one way or the other. They are:

Current: Noah's Ark, according to the Book of Genesis, was a large vessel ...
Proposed: In Judeo-Christian and Islamic mythology, Noah's Ark was a large vessel ...

Since most people who look at this page are familiar with the Genesis, the differences might not be so clear, so allow me to offer a similar example (pulled directly from another Wikipedia page) that isn't likely to be as familiar:

Equivalent to the first: Duat (or Tuat) (also called Akert, Amenthes, or Neter-khertet), according to the Amduat, is the underworld.
Equivalent to the second: In Egyptian mythology, Duat (or Tuat) (also called Akert, Amenthes, or Neter-khertet) is the underworld.

Discussion

I feel the second establishes context for the reader very clearly on account of it not relying on existing knowledge of the topic. At least one editor here, Til Eulenspiegel, has objected on the basis that the proposed change uses the word mythology, which according to them is not accurate. Til has been asked to provide some sort of evidence for this from a reliable source, and has yet to do so. He/she has, however, quoted from another Wikipedia page which discusses common uses of the term (for instance, the phrase urban myth). The assumption of this meaning is expressly discouraged at Wikipedia:WTA#Myth_and_legend. On the other hand, it has been demonstrated that the terminology is not only standard fare on Wikipedia, but that the usage has been adopted by other encyclopaedias (all theology and speculation concerning creation in the Christian community are based on the myth of creation in the biblical book of Genesis .. - Encyclopaedia Britannica) and reliable sources have been presented stating the exact opposite of Til's claims (Most readers would not be surprised to find that the biblical stories of creation and Eden are often considered mythological - Mythology: Myths, Legends, & Fantasies, Janet Parker (Editor), ISBN: 0785817905, pg. 330.).

I think Til is allowing his/her own prejudices get in the way of reason here, so instead of arguing seemingly without end, I've started this RFC in the hope we can settle on one side or the other for good. Ben (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: As this dispute goes back for years and involves numerous editors on both sides of the dispute, I've already opened dispute resolution process; Please see Medcab case link at top of this page. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to participate if necessary, but at the least this section should give third parties a quick overview of the arguments on both sides. Ben (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

PiCo,

why complicate an existing perfectly accurate opening? .. let's keep it clear and simple

No-one was trying to complicate anything, and I don't see where anyone has said the opening wasn't accurate. The problem as I see it, is that describing Noah's Ark as something from Genesis is nowhere near as clear as saying it's from Christian etc. mythology, so I really am trying to keep it clear and simple. I can think of an easy example of where this might come up. Kids with no grounding in the bible at all (most kids that go to a public school in Australia, and other countries I'm sure) are likely to hear of Noah's Ark at some point - it is fairly famous after all. If they're curious and come to this page, they're not going to know what Genesis is, but they're almost certain to know what Christianity, Judaism or Islam are. If you agree with that, then I'm not sure why you think Genesis is clearer than Christian mythology? Since mythology is perfectly accurate, I can't think of a clearer and more accurate sentence to introduce Noah's Ark. Ben (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Non-factual Worldviews:

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

The statement in this box requires some form of attribution. Is it an exact quote from WP policy, in which case that fact should be stated with a link to the appropriate page, or is it the just the opinion or interpretation of an editor, in which case it should be signed? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

You are welcome to try and establish this, but given the prolific use of the word mythology, by scholars, reliable and notable sources discussing this topic, by general references like Encyclopedia Britannica and the Oxford Dictionary of Religion, academic institutions in an educational environment, and even the media, I'm inclined to think it would be a futile effort. Trying instead to interpret neutrality in terms of Swiss law is just silly. Ben (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A tally to gauge consensus

The current wording, #1

Support - Who dont know what is Genesis can follow the link. And to describe the Noah's Ark as "mythology" (implicit in the proposed links of #2) is a POV. A ntv (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Support - for reasons already stated; but see compromise proposal below Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I note that many multiple other editors are also on record as saying they don't find the term "mythology" necessary, and consider it over-the-top framing. I could make quite a long list of such editors, if I went back over the 3 years of this dispute. One would have to discount or disqualify many editors to pretend there is any unified consensus, which there isn't, and still less can we pretend that it is only one editor who has ever said this - not to mention the actual published sources that expressed similar objections. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Support. Who knows Noah's Ark from a mythology book? I don't. The only place I've ever heard it from is the Bible. Just say it like it is. People will think you're talking about two separate stories. There is another flood story, called Gilgamesh, but this one's from Genesis. So say Genesis. Henry8Iam (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Another reason to support #1, is that you can't get more accurate than it is now. It says that Noah's is in the book of Genesis, and there it is. Straight up. Why add a layer of interpretation in there? That's like calling a dinner plate, "a round ceramic object upon which one places ones food..." But it's a dinner plate, so just say so. For some, "a round ceramic object" may not be what they place their food on. Same here, we know one thing for sure: Noah's Ark is in the book of Genesis! This should be the first line.

Support. As Henry8Iam says, why complicate an existing perfectly accurate opening? I oppose any compromise for the same reason - let's keep it clear and simple. But we could add a section or paragraph to the main article about genre, which is what this argument is all about. PiCo (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Keep it accurate, simple and neutral. Sorry for 'late' comment, have been away. ^ross ^nixon 06:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The proposed wording, #2

Support - per above. Ben (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Support - as per above. Comment: it would be helpful to expand the pool of editors for comment, otherwise it's just the usual suspects like me (e.g. at least get some input from Wikiproject Mythology, for which Noak's Ark is a FA). --PLUMBAGO 00:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Support - accurate, consistent terminology and clearly differentiates from "historical account" NathanLee (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - accurate, and doesn't limit the story to just Genesis, which conflicts with the section of the Islamic account. Even if any element of the myth ever actually happened, the content of the 'Ark in later traditions' section certainly shows that the account has been mythologised since then.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Concisely and comprehensively contextualises the Ark without making reference to more than is necessary. Ilkali (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - But perhaps you could say 'scripture' rather than 'mythology'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - First sentence needs to clearly imply that Noah's Ark is not considered factual. jwanders^Talk 16:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion

A compromise has occurred to me, inspired by the WP:NPOV page. We can tweak the wording and tell both significant views in the intro neutrally:

In Abrahamic religions, Noah's Ark was a large vessel... While many modern scholars treat the story within Judeo-Christian or Islamic mythology, there are still today a number of denominations and sects within the framework of all major Abrahamic faiths who continue to teach the deluge as a historical event.

This fact should also be explained for the benefit of the reader within the article: There are various denominations and sects that take a more historical view of the Old Testament and/or Quran accounts; or in the case of the Orthodox Tewahedo Church, the Old Testament in addition to Jubilees and I Enoch (the latter, they teach, was written before the Deluge.) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt at a compromise, but there is massive WP:UNDUE problems with the second half, and you're introducing awkward language in an attempt to censor words you don't like in the first half. It's unfortunate you don't like the word, but Noah's Ark is a part of the mythology by definition. Ben (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There you go again arguing that it is "UNDUE" to mention how religious groups interpret their own scriptures; apparently it must be interpreted for them by others... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

We simply report what is reported elsewhere, we don't interpret anything for anyone. Since this is already dealt with later in the introduction, there is no point arguing over this (or trying to introduce another version of it in the lead). Ben (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we tweak the wording to give both positions? Once again you seem uninterested in compromise and only want to present one position that many find offensive and disagree with, as if it were undisputed fact. Tell both sides if you're going to tell one. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

How about "In the mythology of Abrahamic religions". Mythology already covers "both sides" and the literally true interpretation of this story is a minority viewpoint (as I've shown: not even the pope sounds like he supports). NathanLee (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nathan, I suggest you do some study on the subject of genre in biblical studies - "myth" and "history" are not the only possibilities. Genesis 1-11 has some points which identify it as myth - it concerns supernatural events and has a theological message - but it also has points which are more commonly found in history-writing, notably the preoccupation with chronology. (Myths don't usually bother telling you just when the events happened, but Genesis is very clear that the Flood came in a certain year after the creation of the world). Jacobsen (who he? Find out!) calls the Noah story mythic history, for this very reason. It's also interesting that modern scholars don't cal the Mesopotamian flood stories myths - they call them epics (the epic of Gilgamesh, of Atrahasis, etc), because they hardly mention the gods - just like the Noah story, in which God has only a walk-on part. PiCo (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi PiCo. That's a good point about the chronology, though it's rather circumstantial. Anyway, I suspect that "epic" may carry as much baggage as "myth" (and possibly more). Either way, we'd need a good source to refer to the Epic of Noah's Ark! :-) Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 10:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Aah, since when does something listing out chronology make it not mythological. Could you provide some sort of definition that backs this up? Sounds like any story which mentions an ordering of births/deaths is magically exempt from the definition. Again: this idea doesn't seem to match any definition out there that we've looked at in this discussion, but by all means: post up something.. NathanLee (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose this compromise. I dont see any need to define the Ark as a myth or as history. The Ark comes from the Genesis, that is a book. If the Genesis is a myth, a half myth or history shall be discussed in Genesis Article. Here we shall simply state that the Ark is firstly found in such a book. Who dont know what Genesis is can follow the link, or at least we can add something like "Genesis, an important text in Abrahaic religions". (for Til Eulenspiegel: I know perfectly that the Ark is mentioned also in 1Enoch that probably narrates a older version of Noah's story than Genesis itself, but to link the Ark to 1Enoch is WP:UNDUE and which book is the original is not a matter of faith even for Ethiopeans) A ntv (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the articles Christian mythology, Jewish mythology and Islamic mythology discuss this topic. Hence the desire to link to them in the lead.How about "anyone who doesn't know what mythology means can refer to those articles"? But perhaps you'd go and enhance the genesis article to inlude a clear statement that it is about a collection of mythological stories? (didn't "genesis doesn't mention mythology" get used as an argument as to why this article couldn't use the term also? Can't quite figure out what is acceptable to you guys). NathanLee (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

2nd compromise suggestion

I don't think any of these wordings are entirely satisfactory. While many people know of Noah's Ark through the Book of Genesis or the Qu'ran, others may not. I think it's important to give some context. My suggestion:

In Jewish, Christianity, and Islamic scriptures such as the Book of Genesis and the Qu'ran, Noah's Ark was a large vessel ...

My suggestion makes no judgment about the historicity of the Ark and the creation story, but I think it gives adequate context to understand what follows in the rest of the article. Loves Macs (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, we're agreed on why the current version is unsatisfactory, but you didn't explain why the proposed version isn't satisfactory. It seems you feel it judges the historicity of the story, but for the umpteenth time, classing the Noah's Ark story as a myth is not a judgement about its historicity. Would you argue for scientific articles to refrain from using the word 'theory' because one of its definitions is "An unproven conjecture"? Can you imagine a scientist running into a room and asking people to stop calling their work a theory? Of course not, it would be absurd. The word theory has an entirely different meaning in a scientific context. In exactly the same way, the word myth has an entirely different meaning here. It's usage is standard fare throughout the literature, and even Wikipedia. If people mistake the meaning of the word, as they often do with the word theory, you simply correct them, and each of the linked to articles do this perfectly well. Ben (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that using the word "myth" is a judgment of the historicity of the story (I personally view it as allegory, not historical fact), but I also think the word "myth" doesn't absolutely have to be in the very first sentence of the article. It can and should be used later on. Loves Macs (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I discovered something in the Islamic mythology article that is helpful. There's a {myth box} (I don't know how else to mention it without making it pop up). If this box were inserted at the top of this article, I would readily support Ben's proposed wording. I think it reads better if it says "In Jewish, Christian, and Islamic mythology, Noah's Ark is...]], but otherwise, yeah. Loves Macs (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That wording was my first suggestion ('was' instead of 'is' though), but we were trying to shorten it a little. Another suggestion I gave was In Abrahamic mythology, Noah's Ark was ..., but others were concerned the term wasn't as widespread (though we do have an article on it /shrug). Since one of the main points here is to keep things clear, I'm happy with either "Jewish, Christian and Islamic.." or "Judeo-Christian and Islamic..". Ben (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

SupportThis seems to do the job. Who cares if the word "mythology" is not used in the first sentence. I have no problem with it if it is used or not, but this will work fine.Ltwin (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Since we're trying to narrow this down to a preferred choice, maybe you can hash out some reasoning for this choice over the others? "This will work fine" doesn't really help us out. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It will work fine because Noah's Ark is mentioned in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scriptures. It fully and concisely describes the subject. What else is needed?Ltwin (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

An apple or a mango will do fine for afternoon tea, because they're both food. However, I would prefer the mango since I think it tastes better, they're on special and I have time to cut one up an eat it. The however bit is what else is needed, ie, why do you prefer one over the others? We're trying to decide which is best, not which will simply work. Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah we could try that but obviously this simple introductory sentence is very controversial for reasons I can't understand. You all can argue on specifics, but you'll probably will never reach a consensus if you don't compromise. I don't have any vested interest in this article. This just seems like it would be the best sentence. It doesn't have to include the word 'mythology'Ltwin (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well you should keep in mind this isn't a vote, so "no reason/arbitrary" isn't likely to make much of a difference or help us out. Thanks for taking the time to weigh in though. Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was a vote. A request was made for comment. I came hear to make a comment saw a proposal that I liked and supported and commented as such. If it was percieved as a vote it wasn't meant as such. However, I still don't quite understand why there is such a controversy over one sentence. It boggles my mind.Ltwin (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ben,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ben, We agree again on both points,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please don't imply that this is purely Ben's viewpoint, it's had lots of people support its use to describe this religious story (as per other religious stories exactly like this). Every dictionary definition put up shows that this word is entirely descriptive of this story. The term "deluge mythology" or "flood mythology" is widespread. No one (I believe) is stating that this is historically accurate. TE even says that no one is arguing for that (e.g. it is a very small viewpoint). We have the info box that will completely clear it up. martin: if people can't read infoboxes placed at the top of the screen then what else might they not read? We're an encyclopaedia and we use words correctly. We've got scientific evidence, previous pope's opinions, archbiship reference that this story is not factual or to be treated as such. It would be within rights to describe this as fiction (as the epic of gilgamesh, the apparent source of this story according to various sources, is on here). The only group that objects is literal biblical creationists, which we will have mention that they regard this as true: Christian mythology for instance. This article is not for the discussion about what the term "mythology" means to various groups and the history of the term, it just IS a part of Christian mythology, Jewish mythology and Islamic mythology. Encylopaedia britannica mentions genesis as an example of mythology. Those articles dealing with the "xxx mythology" can be the place for describing the "battle ground" over the terminology, although I'd still like to see some examples of references that show this "hate word" stuff some people allude to. It appears nothing more than personal opinion that Ben, myself and others are being polite enough to discuss, but which really just need some references rather than personal opinion please. NathanLee (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nathan, you still don't seem to have a firm grasp on the argument. It's not enough to demonstrate that some denominations agree that Genesis is not literal. To demonstrate that there is no disagreement, you would have to show that this a universal and uncontested view. This cannot be done, because this is highly controversial, and the closest you can come is to try to disqualify (a la 1933 Enabling Act) your opposition by stigmatizing them somehow. But this isn't like gravity or geometry; nothing has ever been "proven" to everyone's complete satisfaction, if it had there would be no debate. On the contrary, all we have seen are hypotheses regarding the origin of the story, not "proof". After some time has gone by, proponents of the hypothesis summarily "declare" it to be accepted and no longer a hypothesis, often over the dead bodies of those holding another hypothesis whom they are ostracizing, but that's not how the true scientific method is supposed to work. The whole thing starts and ends with someone's unproven hypothesis.

Secondly, it's not enough to demonstrate that your favorite definition of "mythology" is ONE of the correct definitions. You're insisting it's the ONLY valid definition, and there the dictionaries disagree with you. As long as a word has multiple definitions, it may be described as "ambiguous", a loaded word, a weasel word, and a "word to avoid". ANy number of more neutral synonyms can be found, but now it seems you are being honest that you do after all wish to imply your POV that the Bible is false. The word "myth" (muthos) appears in the New Testament several times in the context of "false story" as something that Christians are commanded not to believe in, and that is how the word first entered the English language, before certain "academics" on behalf of all other English speakers unilaterally attempted to redefine it in more recent years. If Wikipedia defines Genesis as a "myth", to literalists then this is like Wikipedia is telling readers what religion to believe or not believe. This is just WRONG, not just "offensive", and it violates NPOV cornerstone policy in every possible way.

Finally your condescending comment that you and Ben are only "being polite enough to discuss" this problem is a real good indicator of the patronizing arrogance toward other viewpoints that you display, once again it sounds as if you are the judge who gets to veto and dismiss everyone else's concerns. Take a real honest look and see just how many editors have been crying foul at this blatant attempt to prescribe belief, not to mention all those published sources for the same point of view that you brushed off with a dismissive wave of the hand. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Are there any reasonable alternatives?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A possible new introduction

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel that features in Abrahamic flood myths. The story featuring the Ark was developed around the 5th century BC, taking existing Babylonian myths as its basis, and altering them to give the story a distinctive Hebrew monotheistic twist. Today, the story is most notably found in the biblical Book of Genesis (chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71), with elaborations found in later works.

or

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel that features in the flood myths of the Abrahamic religions. The story featuring the Ark was developed around the 5th century BC, taking existing Babylonian myths as its basis, and altering them to give the story a distinctive Hebrew monotheistic twist. Today, the story is most notably found in the biblical Book of Genesis (chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71), with elaborations found in later works.

or

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel that features in the mythology of the Abrahamic religions. The flood myth that features the Ark was developed around the 5th century BC, taking existing Babylonian myths as its basis, and altering them to give the story a distinctive Hebrew monotheistic twist. Today, the story is most notably found in the biblical Book of Genesis (chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71), with elaborations found in later works.

or

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel that features in the mythical history shared by Abrahamic religions. The flood myth that features the Ark was developed around the 5th century BC, taking existing Babylonian myths as its basis, and altering them to give the story a distinctive Hebrew monotheistic twist. Today, the story is most notably found in the biblical Book of Genesis (chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71), with elaborations found in later works.

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

The story has been subject to many extensive elaborations in Abrahamic religions, ranging from theological interpretations, to hypothetical solutions for more practical problems. By the 19th century, many geologists, archaeologists and biblical scholars had abandoned a literal interpretation of the narrative; however, biblical literalists continue to accept the Ark as a crucial element in their understanding of the historicity of the Bible, and searches for the Ark's speculated resting spot continue to this day.

Discussion

I've incorporated the term myth, per the majority of the notable and reliable sources on the topic, some of Til's work that he has been developing, and some of PiCo's work, to help introduce the Genesis story in the second paragraph. I'd like to tweak the third paragraph, but I haven't had much time to think about it. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This version is highly POV and unacceptable; there is no consensus among published sources that Genesis is an adaptation of a Babylonian myth; that's a disputed POV - unless you somehow discount all the sources that say different. You are continuing to push your own opinions as if they were uncontested fact, and to deny that anyone else, even a published source, has any right to disagree with your favored school of thought. As for accusations that I take this personally, I don't take this any more personally than you yourself have made it. One of the greatest ironies I see is that you simultaneously complain of 'reducto ad populum', while suggesting that any mainstream Christian denominations who hold to the historicity of the Bible, are the equivalent of the Flat Earth society. On the contrary, it is your minority view that more resembles the Flat Earth society. In fact, if we as editors got to "disqualify" all sources that counter our own POV with some such kind of nebulous, a priori litmus test, one could use the exact same tactics to argue for the Flat Earth POV, also by crying 'reducto ad populum'. What's that - you say the overwhelming majority of sources say the Earth is a sphere? Ah, but you see, if they are all wrong, then we can disqualify them all - and then what remains, is a perfect unanimous consensus among 'valid' sources that say the Earth is flat.

In other words, once you realize there is no such thing as consensus in a controversy like this, and that much has been written about this very question being a controversy, then the only thing left that one side tries to do as a last resort, is to somehow 'disqualify' the other side - such as by burning the Reichstag - and then proclaim their own side to be the only consensus and "neutral", because the other side no longer exists. The National Socialist party in 1933 Germany knew they did not enjoy unimpeded consensus, so they adopted a very similar tactic - first disqualify the main opposition party's representation in Parliament, and then pass the Enabling Act, as if there were never any opposition. If a Flat Earther claimed to be able to "disqualify" every source that says the Earth is round, then he could similarly declare "consensus" that it is flat. And if an atheist claims to be able to "disqualify" every source that says the Bible is not a myth, then he can claim "consensus" that it is a myth.

Yes, I know I've just verified Godwin's law - which I don't normally subscribe to anyway - but this argument has dragged on for so long, it was probably bound to happen soon. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, in the time it took me to write all that, I see you've now switched to the "features prominently in" compromise, that I already agreed to. So, perhaps we're starting to get somewhere finally after all. Now all we need to do is recognise that the "Babylonian" connection is a very controversial subject, and we may actually have a compromise. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It should say 'features prominently in mythology', not "the Abrahamic flood myth"... Whatever is "the Abrahamic flood myth"? You mean there is only one? I've never even heard of that viewpoint. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many mythologies, so before getting into this too deeply, can we at least agree that we should mention what mythology we are talking about, namely Abrahamic mythology? Ben (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Abrahamic religion" is enough of a neologism as it is, and it's an umbrella term, comprising several disparate belief systems. So what is "Abrahamic mythology"? Is there only one of them? What sources use this exact term? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on a minute. Shouldn't that have been a question you asked months ago? Do you mean to tell me you've been arguing against using this term without even reading it and asking yourself if it makes sense all this time? That you've just been blindly arguing? Ben (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly am I being criticised for here? The reason I've been arguing against the term "Abrahamic mythology" all this time, is BECAUSE I think it makes no sense, and is an original wikipedian coinage. Are you faulting me for not nominating it for deletion sooner than I did, or what?

On a more encouraging note, one of your recent tweaks - this one - actually would have been an acceptable compromise for my part, for the first sentence only. Of course we'd still have our differences from the second sentence on. But the fact that you actually wrote a first sentence we could both agree with is positive. Here it is again: "Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel that features in the mythology of the Abrahamic religions." The reason I can agree is because elaborations like sirens and Og the giant, I think probably nobody today disputes are within the category of "mythology of the Abrahamic religions", so at least this assertion can be backed up as an accurate summary of the contents of the article, like a lede is supposed to. Would you be willing to go back to this version for the first sentence? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what he's been doing. He's already shown that he didn't read other people's links. TE: you're assuming that anyone not arguing for a literal interpretation is an atheist? How about you go back and read that reference to the last pope and the Adelaide archbishop I posted up: Are they atheists? Let's be straight here: literal creationists are the only section that regards this story as "historical fact". To everyone else it is a story somewhere between "complete and utter fiction made up in every way" through to "perhaps based in part on some real event", BUT having religious meaning/significance. Which, I'll remind you, is the very DEFINITION of what mythology is. The definition of "myth" that you keep harping on about is NOT to be used and is further clarified by the mythology box. That should be enough for anyone. As for this suggestion: I think either is an improvement for the reasons that it un-christian-ifies it a bit (takes account of all the religions that feature this story), has a link to the mythology page so that anyone wondering about the term (that isn't accounted for in the myth box) can see the coverage there. The bit about where it came from would be good to have a ref in the lead, or just leave it for later treatment in the body of the article. NathanLee (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

But do you insist that 'mythology' is used in the first sentence? I do not doubt that the view that the story is mythology is held by the clear majority of people in general (regardless of religious belief) but that view is not universally held. There is a significant minority (particularly in the US) who believe that the story is totally or substantially historical. I am suggesting that it is wrong to effectively dismiss these peoples' beliefs in the first sentence. Later in the lead section, where things can be put into context, I have no objection to the use of the word. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I retains reservations about using the word 'mythology' at all in the opening sentence, I have to agree with Til that "Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel that features in the mythology of the Abrahamic religions." is a huge improvement on any versions that include "Abrahamic mythology", "Christian mythology" etc. At least this version does not imply that the whole of these writings are "mythology". For the sake of consensus and so we can move on, I am willing to forego further objections and accept this version.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That is also the version I said I would be willing to accept, and for the same reason you give (ie, does not imply that the whole of these writings are "mythology"). The phrasing and position of "features in" were determinative to my opinion. It's also the version that Ben actually proposed at one point. So far, this seems like the most widely acceptable compromise, if it turns out that getting into "mythology" is truly essential for the lede on a particular Bible article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Martin: In response to "There is a significant minority (particularly in the US) who believe that the story is totally or substantially historical." The idea that this is "particularly in the US" seems to be widepread, but it is one of my goals to raise awareness that this is a misconception - unless you're just talking about the English-speaking world. For one thing, we can add "and in Ethiopia" to "in the US". Then, there are other Orthodox countries like Armenia, Georgia, even Greece and Russia with substantial religious populations who accept the Bible version of history. Once you add in most of the Muslim world where the Quranic view of history is easily the dominant majority one, we have a vast, widespread area where belief in the Deluge is common outside of the US; and unlike the US, even taught in schools in many cases. Yet militant minimalists would have us believe this view of history is not significantly widespread, or is confined to few individuals in the American Midwest whom they regularly caricature as inbred with tobacco-juice running down their chins (like there's something wrong with chewing tobacco!) In fact, within the world of Abrahamic religions' background, the greatest and most aggressive skepticism today is to be found in the same nations where an oxymoronic "intolerant liberalism" is currently in fashion - such as the other "Anglo-Saxon nations" (UK, Canada, Australia) and Western Europe. So, far from being isolated, Bible-believing Americans have much support these days in the second and third worlds. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels"

The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels is a 1946 book by Alexander Heidel, the scholar who discovered many of the aforementioned parallels and wrote about them. He is not so dogmatic as modern minimalists POV; he concludes that there are three main possibilities to account for the similarities: "first, the Babylonians borrowed from the Hebrew account; second, the Hebrew account is dependent on the Babylonian; third, both are descended from a common original."

This view is not limited to 1946. More recently, Nozomi Osanai did a highly detailed and scientific study of these same parallels. (A comparative study of the flood accounts in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis) Her conclusion is that the Genesis account is unlikely to be derived from the Mesopotamian one, because of its vast superiority in detail, which is far more distorted in the Mesopotamian version: "the flood account in the Epic is the story which lost historical accuracy and was distorted, whereas the Genesis Flood account is the accurate historical record of the Flood event." This whole lengthy study is right on target for what we are debating. And btw, when this scholar uses the word "myth", she unmistakably means "false story"; she states that many (but not all) Christians no longer believe Genesis because they have been led to believe it is merely a "myth".

The view that Genesis was written in the 5th c. BC is known as "minimalism", it is certainly not uncontested; and per WP:NPOV, we would have to attribute this POV, not endorse it, with our wording. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A few seconds of research tells me that Nozomi Osanai earned her M.A. writing “A comparative study of the flood accounts in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis” as her thesis while attending Wesley Biblical Seminary in the USA. I'm failing to see how this source makes the case that the "Genesis account is unlikely to be derived from the Mesopotamian one" point of view should be given equal weight to the "minimalism" point of view. I'm not saying it doesn't either, I just don't see it. Please focus on notable and reliable sources that explicitly talk about the state of affairs in modern research, as opposed to particular opinions. Ben (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is notable. I couldn't find a source that is more explicit, and her methodology is scientific. If I did find one that was more explicit, you'd surely argue that that wasn't "notable' either, because your mind seems pre-made up to only accept the point of view that it is absolutely vital to characterize this story as "mythology", and I doubt any amount of contrary published opinions would ever change your mind. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What? That's not right, it's not even wrong. Ben (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, actually I wasn't even trying to convince you of anything; anyone ought to be able to see that's a lost cause, no matter how many explicit sources I find. I'm really just trying to demonstrate to the more non-partisan editors here, that there are other published references that establish that other significant points of view contrary to yours really do exist. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We need sources that gauge the significance of particular points of view, not demonstrate the existence of a particular point of view. That MA thesis shows the existence of a particular POV, it does not establish that that POV is significant. That's the best I can explain the problem. If you just don't get it, that's too bad, but attacking me personally isn't going to turn one type of source into another, so give it a break. Ben (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Til, the view isn't that Genesis was written in the 5th century BC, it's that it reached it's final form then. And this isn't minimalism - minimalism holds that Genesis was written even later, in the 4th century BC, or the 3rd, or even the 2nd. The view that it was completed (not written) around 450 BC is mainstream in scholarly circles. PiCo (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Til, I don't know what Osanai wrote, but I can agree that the consensus (majority) scholarly view is that the Noah story isn't derived directly from the Atrahasis one. When you think about it, it's unlikely to be the case - we have only a fraction of the literature available in ancient times, and no idea what has been lost. However, the normative view is that the Genesis story was based on a Babylonian story very like Atrahasis. As I writer, I know from experience that Osanai's thesis that a lack or presence of detail is no guide to anything - stories can get longer or shorter, more realistic or less, depending on what the wrioter wants to do with them. My latest project was re-writing a book manuscript about a British packpacker who went missing in Cambodia in 2004. The chap who wrote it carried out the search and then wrote the story, but lacked talent to do his own writing. I re-wrote it, cutting a lot of fluff, adding detail from my own experience of Cambodia where necessary - the physical descriptions, not the narrative about the action. I'd dare anyone now to disentangle the two, his original and my edit. My point is, academics like Osanai just don't understand the process of this other type of writing, because academic writing has a totally different set of ideals. (And I do know about academic writing - I have a higher degree in history).PiCo (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Pico, as someone who cares as much about this subject as you do, it's a shame that you haven't even read Osanai, and without even reading it, would assert "My point is, academics like Osanai just don't understand..." as if we editors are supposed to come up with our own novel and original rebuttals to every printed source that reaches a conclusion we don't like (in this case only by hearsay since you have not seen her paper). I suspect that as a fan of this story, you would find what she has to say at the least very fascinating, and one thing I must say is that she pays far greater and detailed attention to the scientific method than most of these 'academics' who are really simply engaging in idle conjecture. This should be like meat and drink to you: Osanai's thesis. The question of the origins and date of the Old Testament has perplexed man for centuries, probably always will, there are numerous opinions, consensus has NOT been reached, we as a neutral project are not entitled to simply "proclaim a winner" among all the contradictory hypotheses, nor are we supposed to debate which of them we like best; if we strictly followed policy our task would be extremely simple: we would simply report on the spectrum of views, and whose views they are, without endorsing any of them. Policy requires our language to reflect this, and that it is a hypothesis, not to assume that it is a proven fact. So if this is really needed in the intro, it needs to be something like "Many modern academics are in general agreement that Genesis reached its final form in the 5th century BC, but there are also many other significant opinions". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll undent so the above discussion can be continued if necessary. Perhaps if I change the above suggestions to:

The story featuring the Ark had developed by around the 5th century BC, ...

we would avoid any ambiguity? Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I remind everyone that this article is about the Ark, and not the flood narrative? References to the analogous boats in the Eridu Genesis, Atrahasis Epic, and Gilgamesh Epic are valid, but extended discussion of the origin and literary history of the entire flood narrative is not. We've had this discussion countless times. All the material which needs to be in the article with regard to ANE analogs is already there. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable alternative to me, Ben, although I would question the grammar. Can I suggest the following:

The story of the Ark had developed into its current form by around the 5th century BCE...--FimusTauri (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand "taking existing Babylonian myths as its basis, and altering them to give the story a distinctive Hebrew monotheistic twist." is simply wrong.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-reading all of Ben's suggestions reveals a number of flaws: the opening 'sentence' has become three sentences in each case; none of the versions actually inform the reader as to what the story is about; the discussions about the origin of the story do not belong in the opening sentence. Can I suggest this opening sentence:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh), in the mythology of the Abrahamic religions, is a large vessel in which Noah saved his family and a stock of the world's animals from a Deluge.

I still dislike the word 'mythology' but offer the above as a compromise.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What happened to "figures in"? I still think saying "Book of Genesis and Quran" is specific and more than adequate framing; readers will probably already have their own opinions of these, and can click on those links to learn more views. And I'm confident arb-com would agree, based on their past decisions re: neutrality and epistemological framings. If "mythology" is really all that all-fired important for the intro, then it should back up what the article already says (per LEDE) and say that it "figures in mythology of Abrahamic religions" eg., sirens and Og the giant-type stories. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, Til, I would be most happy with

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh), in the Bible/Tanakh and the Quran, is a large vessel in which Noah saved his family and a stock of the world's animals from a Deluge.

I offered a version with the word mythology as a compromise, but I do see your point. Maybe its an British thing, but I find "figures in" to be grammatically suspect. How about this:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh), as it appears in the mythology of the Abrahamic religions, is a large vessel in which Noah saved his family and a stock of the world's animals from a Deluge.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, because that still sounds like the entire story is agreed to be mythology, when it has been shown that there is much disagreement, and that it's not that simple. For NPOV, it would be better as: Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh), in Genesis and the Quran, is a large vessel in which Noah saved his family and a stock of the world's animals from a Deluge. [This sentence gives more specific framing.] It has also often appeared in the mythology of the Abrahamic religions. [This sentence leaves open which elements are considered mythology, about which there is the most dispute among the various sources]. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Also FT, after re-reading the section above this one, I see that I should have said "features in" rather than "figures in". Would this be better British grammar? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

'Features in' certainly reads better.

Reading your suggestion, I am comfortable with the first sentence. However, "It has also often appeared in the mythology of the Abrahamic religions." seems to be introducing a topic better left until later. This also removes 'mythology' from the opening sentence. I was under the impression from what you said in an earlier discussion that you felt 'in the mythology of the Abrahamic religions' was an acceptable (if not ideal) compromise and was trying to work on that. The only way I can see to reconcile this would be to combine your two sentences into one, such as:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh), in Genesis and the Quran and also in the mythologies of the Abrahamic religions, is a large vessel in which Noah saved his family and a stock of the world's animals from a Deluge.

I can foresee a number of objections to this, though.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Having read your recent comments in the discussion above, can I suggest this:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel which features in the mythology of the Abrahamic religions which Noah used to save his family and a stock of the world's animals from a Deluge.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I could live with that, but I would suggest a non-controversial change, just to avoid repeating too many "which" clauses; altering "which features" to "featuring". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Also I would drop "the" and just say "in mythology of Abrahamic religions". "the" makes it sound like there is only one, which is just as bad as saying "Abrahamic mythology". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring in the mythology of Abrahamic religions which Noah used to save his family and a stock of the world's animals from a Deluge.

I would invite comment from Ben and others on this, if Til and I agree that this is a suitable compromise for the opening sentence.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdenting to allow for discussion

Just realised that I missed a 'the'. The proposed opening which I am assuming Til agrees upon reads:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring in mythology of Abrahamic religions which Noah used to save his family and a stock of the world's animals from a Deluge.

All comments invited.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

One more minor comment - when going through the article history, I saw that at some point, someone pointed out that the 'watercraft' link is incorrect as it apparently implies a propelled vessel rather than one that simply floats... I don't know much about how valid this concern is, though... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, that reading could be construed as an endorsement of the historicity, unless you add 'according to' what texts, which narrows down the framing as would also be desired. So, here is my version of your version:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel, featuring in mythology of Abrahamic religions, which Noah used to save his family and a stock of the world's animals from a Deluge, as related primarily in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that. Let's see what others say.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I am the religious zealot then. To say 'featuring in mythology of Abrahamic religions' seem to me to dismiss in the first sentence the opinion of the sizable minority who believe that the Ark was a historical vessel. But if everyone else accepts it that is fine with me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

When I was writing the suggestions in the previous section, it was a conscious decision to not cram too much into the first sentence, which as you can see just lead me to moving all the description of the story to the second paragraph. If everyone agrees with the structure proposed in the latest version of the intro (just above this comment), which after a quick scan I have no objections to, can I at least ask that a full stop be placed after the word 'religions' to help keep the sentence manageable for readers? The new second sentence will probably have to start Noah used the Ark ... blah blah. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A small but vital point: Noah didn't use the Ark. If you read the story attentively, you'll see that Noah is entirely passive, his only act being to build the Ark, and even that is to specifications laid down by God. Apart from that, all the actions are carried out by God - God brings the animals to the Ark, shuts the door, the Ark simply drifts without direction, and eventually the flood goes down and the Ark ends up on the mountain without any attention from Noah. The most he does during the period of the flood is send out the birds, but even that has no bearing on the outcome. The first active thing Noah does is offer a sacrifice after it's all over. PiCo (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see your point PiCo, and that is easily remedied. I also understand why Ben feels the sentence may be too long. However, the 'easy' remedy to PiCo's point will require Ben's full stop to be moved. How about this:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel, featuring in mythology of Abrahamic religions, in which Noah, his family and a stock of the world's animals were saved from a Deluge. This is primarily related in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71).--FimusTauri (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Every time I read that I feel that the phrase 'in mythology of Abrahamic Religions' is grammatically suspect, but I understand Til's point about including the word 'the' giving the impression of a singular mythology. I think that this can be resolved by uding the plural:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel, featuring in the mythologies of Abrahamic religions, in which Noah, his family and a stock of the world's animals were saved from a Deluge. This is primarily related in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71).

I'm still new at this, if anyone can turn 'mythologies' into a link without it reading 'mythology' I'd appreciate it.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Got it:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel, featuring in the mythologies of Abrahamic religions, in which Noah, his family and a stock of the world's animals were saved from a Deluge. This is primarily related in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71). —Preceding unsigned comment added by FimusTauri (talk • contribs) 09:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We're making progress. I think our guideline is to put the more precise framing (what literature it is known from) into the first lead sentence, though. So I would prefer a compromise more like this, combining the lengthy bit into one:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featured in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9), the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71), and in the mythologies of most Abrahamic religions. As related in the Genesis version, Noah, his family and a stock of the world's animals were saved from a Deluge... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought that a summary of the story would be at least as important as the source. Although my version is not as specific, it does at least indicate where, in general, the story is found, as well giving a summary of the story all in one sentence.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I checked the relevant guideline, it consists of the section hooked from WP:BOLDTITLE and the preceding section. It would seem reasonable to infer, especially from comparable examples given, that the first sentence should ideally provide the specific context for things known from works of literature, similar to terms of art. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As per those guidelines (MOS:BEGIN), the first sentence should specify what the subject is about and also why it is notable. As your version stands, the first sentence merely states that it is a large vessel - which does nothing to illuminate its notability to the reader.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Section break for easy editing

The latest version reads way too awkwardly, for instance the first sentence seems to place mythology, the Bible and the Qur'an all on the same level, as if to equate them, and I don't think that is what any of us are going for. If I can bring us back to the point just before my last comment,

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel, featuring in mythology of Abrahamic religions, which Noah used to save his family and a stock of the world's animals from a Deluge, as related primarily in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71).

and now implement your new changes:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring in the mythologies of Abrahamic religions, found primarily in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71). As related in the Genesis version, Noah, his family and a stock of the world's animals were saved from a Deluge...

I think it then reads much more cleanly. I also made one additional word tweak in the second half of the first sentence to avoid using the word 'related' twice. What do you think? Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that last version for the first two sentences looks okay to me. I'm so glad to see we seem to reaching some kind of compromise on this point at last. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC) One more suggestion came to mind, perhaps striking "found primarily in" and substituting "and known primarily from" would be more appropriate. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that seems to infer most people know of the Ark from the Bible or Qur'an, but I suspect most are introduced to it other ways and are perhaps told those texts are the primary sources. The current version gives the impression that the Bible and Qur'an are the primary sources, and avoids the issue of where people find it. I won't protest if others disagree with me though. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

'Found' could possibly be misinterpreted as making some kind of comment about where some people believe the actual Ark might or might not be "found", so at least changing that word to 'mentioned' would avoid this. Also I understand the subject that this clause modifies as being "vessel", so it would be clearer that it is the second such clause by adding 'and' to avoid confusion. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Would an easier solution be to reverse the 'tweak' - i.e. use related in the first instance and change the second 'related'? For example:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring in the mythologies of Abrahamic religions, as related in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71). According to the Genesis version, Noah, his family and a stock of the world's animals were saved from a Deluge...

although I still think the summary of the story should be in the first sentence.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC) You may want to add 'primarily'.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would rather tweak Ben's last version like this:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring in the mythologies of Abrahamic religions, and mentioned primarily in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71). As related in the Genesis version, Noah, his family and a stock of the world's animals were saved from a Deluge...

Note that the only minor difference from Ben's current proposal is replacing the word "found" with "and mentioned". The "and" resolves the ambiguity of the subject of the second clause; it is the vessel itself that is mentioned in the Bible / Quran. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that. If Ben and others are happy with it then, maybe, just maybe, we can get on with arguing about the rest of the article.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The 'and' doesn't feel right to me, but I always sucked at English so if you all think it's fine then I'm happy with it. Cheers, Ben (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sentence should be split up - and I propose using scriptures to replace mythologies. Split should show "It is mentioned primarily in the Hebrew...etc" ^ross ^nixon 02:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh God, Ross, don't start them off again! :) PiCo (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ross, many of us dislike using the word 'myth/mythology/mythologies'. However, we have now agreed on the above (or something like it) as an acceptable compromise. Please read through this talk section to understand why the word is acceptable when used this way.

Ben, I can see why Til wants the 'and' in there. I wonder if 'is' could be added to improve the sentence flow? i.e. "...and is mentioned..." This would reinforce to the reader that it is the vessel that is the subject of the second clause ('is' being the singular, whereas 'mythologies' are plural)--FimusTauri (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ross, if I can give more explanation, the version we painstakingly worked out above represents just about the only possible circumstance where the word 'mythology' can be used and it seems accurate compromise. Of course personally I agree that 'scriptures' would be vastly preferable, and that 'mythology' is completely extraneous. But who would deny that the story, whether itself mythology or not, has at least "featured in" mythology over the centuries, by almost anyone's definition of the word "mythology"? And I can see where this subject, while still primarily a Bible subject, also has some interest for students of mythology, where it overlaps. By the way, my hat's off to our former moderator Vassyana for ingeniously suggesting the "featuring in" solution. I'm sorry he left this case before seeing his idea come to fruition. FT: I agree, adding the singular "is" makes the syntax clearer still. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I went and asked someone uninvolved what they thought, and the feedback wasn't so good. They weren't very specific, but they did say it was convoluted. Starting with the wording above, I've tried to deal with that by breaking that first sentence up, like so:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring in the mythologies of Abrahamic religions. It is mentioned primarily in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71), where it is related that God instructs Noah to make an ark for his family and for representatives of the world's animals and birds so that they may be saved from an impending deluge.

After that, as you can see, I merged the next pieces together. Since they were so related and seemed to fit together in once sentence, it seemed like a reasonable thing to do. I've omitted the word Genesis a second time since I think what I wrote is consistent with what is in both Genesis and the Qur'an, but please check this. What do you think? Cheers, Ben (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, we should include the specific context in the very first sentence. If the first sentence only says "mythology", it sounds like that is the entire context. I don't see anything convoluted about the compromise we agreed to; it is grammatical and clear, apart from the notorious ambiguity of the word "mythology". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you just wrote, so can you please rephrase it? Ben (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier in the discussion, the notability of the ark being in the Bible is very relevant (primary importance even)and therefore needs to be weighed accordingly. With regards to the "convoluted" proposal, the word "primary" is not really the best word choice here, "most notably" is better. The second sentence should be omitted because it is redundant to the second paragraph. We can also remove the "and" and improve things perhaps by rearranging the first sentence to read:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel most notably mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71) that is featured in the mythologies of Abrahamic religions.

I'm busy, and must go for now, but will respond again later. --Modocc (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Ah, I see now that the article was updated earlier today, the current version is also fine. Good work. Later. --Modocc (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC).

The real problem with your wording, Ben, is that we are back to the situation where the implication is that all of the Bible and the Quran are mythologies. The compromise was worked out to agree that the story of Noah's Ark may be considered 'mythological' (and I remain uncomfortable with that), but that no such implication is made regarding the rest of the Bible or Quran.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying that Noah's Ark features in the mythologies of Abrahamic religions says nothing about the rest of the Bible, so I don't think anyone has anything to worry about there (that is to say, lets not set up any straw men). Addressing the real 'real' problem, if the sentence is convoluted, it's only going to be a matter of time before other people come along and try and fix that problem - especially if it's as simple as putting in a full stop. If you're subtly trying to push the POV that the bible does not contain mythology (contrary to just about every reliable source out there), it's only going to be a matter of time before others pick up on it and edit that sentence mercilessly to comply with WP:NPOV. The Wiki environment doesn't just allow this, it encourages it, and it will keep on happening.

Since we all agree on the content of the first few sentences, I feel we're so close now. Currently, we have

What Noah's Ark is (a vessel featuring in the mythologies of Abrahamic religions) - which doubles as establishing notability;
Where it is primarily mentioned (the Bible and Qur'an);
Some info on the surrounding story (blah blah blah),

and I feel we should keep these distinct points in seperate sentences. Currently, the second and third points are kept in separate sentences, so we're literally one full stop shy of a logical structure. However, I don't consider this a major problem with the current intro, so it's not worth my time arguing about. If you all disagree with me and like the current version better (for any reason), and it seems you do, that is fine; I'm happy to forget about splitting the sentence for now. Cheers, Ben (talk)

It is not the case that anyone is suggesting that the Bible/Quran do not contain myths - the whole point of the compromise worked out above is the acceptance of Noah's Ark in that category. The important point is that the text must not imply that all of the Bible/Quran is myth.

You are, however, correct in saying that we are extremely close. You also correct in saying that there is a risk of some future editor not knowing about this debate, thinking he is just 'tidying up' and undoing all the good work we have done in achieveing this compromise. Perhaps I can offer a slight tweak to the current wording that may improve the flow of the sentence:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring in the mythologies of Abrahamic religions, most notably in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71).

I think this resolves Til's concerns about the subject of the second clause, as 'most notably' can only refer to the subject of the first clause (i.e. the ark).--FimusTauri (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, FT, you seem to be off track. That there definitely exist widespread POVs or schools of thought that the Bible / Quran do not contain any "myths" at all, is exactly what I have been referencing. The very origin of the word "myth" in English, is that it is explicitly used in the Bible several times to mean the pagan stories that Christians are NOT supposed to believe in. So I actually prefer Ben's current wording to your last suggestion. The story has acquired mythical elements over the years, but we have seen much variance in the sources as to exactly which elements my be described as "myth" and why; this wording leaves it open which elements, since there is certainly a controversy or question here, that whole books have been dedicated to. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break, again

Not off track, merely distracted (Ever tried to convince XP that the local server is not somewhere in cyberspace?). I certainly accept the alternative POV you mentioned; I was simply trying to find a wording that could keep all of the required references in one sentence whilst maintaining a good flow. Unfortunately I didnt catch the inference in my wording that the Bible/Quran are the most notable of the mythologies. It would seem that we cannot have an acceptable use of the word 'mythologies' without sacrificing the flow of the sentence. If we must split the sentence, then can I suggest that the opening paragraph be limited to the two short sentences thus produced. The further detail would then appear in the following paragraph. Also, if the sentence is split, we can actually expand the second sentence slightly to emphasise the points Til makes:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring in the mythologies of Abrahamic religions. The most notable accounts of the ark are found in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71).--FimusTauri (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(←) To me, the above reads so much better. And you're right, splitting the sentence gives us room to move. With the above format, we can now specifically and logically mention that there is a supporting story to help ease the second paragraph in. At the moment the intro just kind of jumps from 'ark' to 'story' without explaining what is going on, so this is probably pretty important. Perhaps something like:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring in the mythologies of Abrahamic religions. The ark, and a supporting story, are most notably found in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71).

I'm not suggesting this exact wording, I'm just trying to illustrate how we can help ease the second paragraph in which I think is important. What do you think? Any better suggestions on how to implement the above? Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the main clause (the ark is a vessel) of the current compromise version is unambiguously modified twice over, with the "featuring in mythologies" and "mentioned in [the books]" on an equal level such that one need not be a subset of the other. With the splitting, this mutually exclusive POV gets ~~pretty much canned~~ lost via subordination, but the POV that the stories are a subset of the various mythologies is not. This much is clear. So what to do? Simply keep the current version? I'm not a magician, but consider tweaking the above suggestions to this:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring in the mythologies and scriptures of the Abrahamic religions, most notably in stories of the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71).

Its inclusive. --Modocc (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You've merged the sentences again, Modocc. Ben's earlier point about sentence flow is important, simply because we want to avoid the situation where some future well-meaning editor breaks the sentence up and destroys the compromise we have almost reached.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In previous medcab cases that involved me, I saw that once a compromise wording was worked out by the arbitrator, a commented-out note was put above, to advise future editors that it was an arbitrated wording and not to be altered without extensive discussion and compromise. This has been an unusual case, since the arbitrators keep quitting, and the one who signed it last hasn't said one word here yet, but in the meantime we have come to the current compromise, in the absence of any arbitrator. We should put a comment to tell people that the lede sentence is the result of mediation, and undiscussed changes will be reverted. If we don't do that, then like you, I foresee new editors constantly tweaking it, but the change I foresee is every few days or so, someone trying to remove "mythology" completely, which should not be done now without discussion, since it was a compromise that found consensus. I'm sure some of us wouldn't want that, but my experience with wikipedia articles and especially this article history tells me that would be liable to happen without any advisory comment. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I had considered that idea, but was unsure whether it was advisable. I am all for it, if everyone else can agree. (Now, I wonder how many weeks we will be arguing over the wording of the advisory comments....)--FimusTauri (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

FimusTauri, please don't conflate length with flow. Full stops can destroy flow and I prefer to not split the sentence based on the content guidelines. Although the current compromise version works, it is convoluted only because it doubles up on clauses without any obvious reason for doing so. The current version is a magician's trick or slight of hand, implicitly maintaining some distinction between the sacred and myth. Certainly science makes for good encyclopedias, but, with caution, its not unreasonable that the dogmatic viewpoints are accommodated too, for the "mythologies and scripture" language explicitly addresses both perspectives. Being an explicit compromise, its less likely to get edited out in the future. In addition, my proposal neatly introduces "stories" preparing the reader for the Genesis story. To settle any doubt about its flow, I suggest getting the advice again of a copy editor. --Modocc (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Modocc, your suggestion is way too much of a mouthful (eyeful?). FimusTauri's suggestion is a much better read, since among other things you don't have to reread it to try and absorb all the words as I had to with your suggestion. To everyone else, we have more to worry about than drive-by edits. I have no objection to putting a hidden message in the article, but personally, I don't want to be on this talk page every other day trying to justify poor sentence structure to people who disagree with it. Instead, I'd rather tidy this up properly now, and not have to worry about it after that. In that spirit, we should avoid trying to stealthily embed some distinction between the sacred and mythology, as Modocc's suggestion tries to do. Two obvious problems with this are 1) they aren't distinct, and 2) it makes for long hard to read sentences. Instead, we should focus on sentences that are easy to read and have an obvious meaning. We agree on the content, and FimusTauri's structure works, so bringing us back to FimusTauri's structure with my changes, we have

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring in the mythologies of Abrahamic religions. The ark, and a supporting story, are most notably found in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71).

Recapping, it is easy to read, there is a clear purpose to each sentence and the second paragraph flows seamlessly from this one. Does anyone have any suggestions to improve the wording though? I feel this version introduces the supporting story idea a little too abruptly, so I'd particularly like to hear what others suggest about the beginning of the second sentence. With two sentences we have room to move, so lets make use of it. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"to stealthily embed..." "stealthily"?????? Heck no. FimusTauri's and your suggestion (cheering it on) does not maintain the minor POV (admirably defended by Til from my reading of his/her comments) at all. Of course religious text and myths are not distinct, nor are these by no means equivalent. There are plenty of urban myths about factual events and different kinds of texts involved (reliable and not so reliable). My version is a mouth full for sure. But it does flow better than the current version and I'm against splitting; nevertheless simply embedding "and scriptures" into your preferred two sentence text would probably pacify the opposition here. Your bare-bones "simplified" version of the first sentence will likely not and it is missing the biblical reference (not crucial, but I'm here to help out if I can and not to fight over that one point). Anyway, I'll probably fade away again soon, cause I don't think I can contribute here ~~anymore~~ too much more than I have, and this dispute is too distracting (my purpose in life is to actually save us from our current plights). Good day, good night and don't meddle with what's right... all too much. --Modocc (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC) I'll add, your version can be improved like so:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring in the mythologies of the Abrahamic religions. The ark and its stories are most notably found in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71).

But to address the minor POV concern, I'd compromise and write:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring in the mythologies and scriptures of the Abrahamic religions. The ark and its stories are most notably found in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71).

Decisions, decisions... --Modocc (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hands up all those who are still following this. Anyway, I thought I might point out that there's no reason to say "...Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis)...", since chapters 6-9 of the Book of Genesis is the only, yes the only, mention that Noah and his Ark get in the entire Tanakh. PiCo (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring in the mythologies ~~and scriptures~~ of the Abrahamic religions, The ark and its story is most notably found in the Book of Genesis.

This will do if its not too stark? Modocc (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Oh, I'll add to this too,the Book of Genesis is the myth so lets dump the scripture POV talk. Ah we solved this one right? No compromising this one at all. BEN, now that we got the wedge in the door to the truth, we can now force it wide-open. I'll just forget the fact that Sunday school teachers do this everyday. ~~What's the REAL story teach. Ha. But Ill bend, lets just stick with mythologies and drum it in harder and longer.~~ Modocc (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, Modocc, you have not been following this debate for very long, so, for your, benefit, I will reiterate my position. If it were up to me, the opening sentence would read

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71).

which has no mention of 'myth/mythology/mythologies'. I have plenty of reasons for not wanting that word in there, including the defense of the minority POV. However, after a very long debate it became clear to both Til and I that there were factions in here that insisted the word be included. Therefore, after a lot of hard work, we came up with a compromise. That compromise was getting very close until you came along and, clearly not understanding many of the nuances of the current wording, have muddied the waters of the debate once again. Your tone of sarcasm is also not helping in the slightest.

The intention behind my last suggestion was to include an implicit "However,"; thus seperating the Bible/Quran from 'mythologies'. This would leave the reader in no doubt that the story can be found amongst mythologies, but on the other hand it is most notable for its inclusion in sacred texts. If you look at my suggestion with the implicit 'However,' included, you should see exactly what I mean:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring in the mythologies of Abrahamic religions. However, the most notable accounts of the ark are found in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71).

On Ben's point. I do not see any need to include any mention of a 'supporting story' at this point. The phrase 'notable accounts' implies (very explicitly) that there is a story involved. If you prefer to find a more explicit word than 'accounts' then I will probably have no objection.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The word account doesn't make it clear that Noah's Ark is part of a larger story, in my opinion. We specifically state that Noah's Ark is a vessel in the first sentence, so for all the uninitiated reader knows, account could mean a list of specifications of the ark, or account of how it was built, or anything. As I said above, lets be clear, not rely on implications. We need to be somehow clear that there is a much larger and important supporting/surrounding story that Noah's Ark is a part of, from which the second paragraph can pick up from and go into detail. This is why I suggested the modification to your second sentence, but I'm open to changes of wording, since it doesn't get the larger/important aspects across and feels a bit too abrupt to me. Cheers, Ben (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ben, and to all concerned about my unruly heated post above (now partially struck). Sorry, my bad, because I lost it and I needed a timeout or something stronger. Modocc (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break

Perhaps a simple compromise might be

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring in the mythologies of Abrahamic religions. The story of the ark is most notably found in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71).

This actually provides even greater seperation between 'mythologies' and Bible/Quran, so I am happy with it.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

At the time this article was featured on Wikipedia's main page, the lede stated "According to the Bible, Noah's Ark...". Since a consensus was reached for this version at that time, lets consider some variant of this (I know we've been here before, done that and I'm hard to follow sometimes, which can get on my own nerves too), but bare with me please:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring in biblical stories and the mythologies of Abrahamic religions. The story of the ark is most notably found in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71).

I put this forward simply because, "I like it", since it soothes my spidery sensibilities. Modocc (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC) I don't mind putting sarcasm aside and I've been paying attention here. For instance, Til objected to the first sentence in this post [1]; and this is my second attempt to reach a consensus with a revision that actually overcomes Til's objection as well as my own concerns. Do I get a Barnstar for at least trying? Modocc (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

FimusTauri, that sounds good to me. However, since there are differences in the stories, would you be ok with not referring to it as 'the story'? Something like:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring in the mythologies of Abrahamic religions. Stories involving the ark are most notably found in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9) and the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71).

sounds good to me. This seems to address all my concerns, especially readability and relations between the first and second paragraph. Cheers, Ben (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the stories differ and I've wondered how to best address that minor problem (trying to prioritize here). Consider this fix:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel featuring in biblical stories and the mythologies of Abrahamic religions. The most notable story of Noah's Ark is in the Book of Genesis (chapters 6 through 9), and similar stories are found in later traditions, such as in the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71).

Of course, I included the "biblical stories". It helps not only with notability, it also helps tie together the first and second sentences. --Modocc (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That version will not work. You're still trying to write in an implicit distinction between biblical stories and the mythologies of Abrahamic religions. That doesn't make sense, and confuses the sentence. Your addition doesn't tie in with second sentence either, it's a sloppy duplication of it. Finally, the current content doesn't need any help in establishing notability. Moving onto the second sentence, you place the Genesis story higher on the notability ladder than the Qur'an story. It suffices to say they're both notable, as in the version whose content (though not structure) everyone else seems to agree on. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I, respectfully, disagree with just about everything in your response. Noah's Ark is notable because there are a zillion biblical stories in print and other media. Also, noting the prominence of Genesis story is not a duplication of this fact and this one particular story is placed foremost in the article over and above all other stories therefore the lede should reflect the article. What I wrote is based primarily on these considerations. Any perceived distinction real or not between "biblical stories" and mythologies is POV anyway, so it does not matter. Insisting that there is no distinction and discarding the minor POV of Sunday School teachers and the notability of that POV is not neutral. Modocc (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You lost me after you said you disagreed with me. What exactly is your point? If you're going to throw around terms like 'POV' and 'neutral', then please be clear about it. A is POV because of B and X is not neutral because of Y, as described in quote Z on the WP:NPOV page. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, yes, that is how a specific POV is written into an article. With my usage, a Point-of-View is simply an existing consensus perspective or opinion. In this case, there are competing views of the biblical schools and the more substantial views of academics. The "it really happen (usually in some sort of flood)" crowd is probably fringe(then again maybe not where I live, since in the bible belt bibles and biblical children story books sell like hotcakes). So I don't mean to be difficult, nor sympathetic to fringe views. But the lede benefits by including notable associations. As it is, the first sentence of your preferred version is stripped bare of notable contexts. Its bad enough that the new found "compromise" amongst very few editors removed the most notable biblical storyline; now you want to remove any direct reference to it. Its just too much. Maybe I'm just too centered on western culture, because although the ark is part of the mythologies of Abrahamic religions, the prevalence of the ark's biblical stories in western culture is what makes it notable on this version of Wikipedia. --Modocc (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well, notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity", as noted at WP:N. Noah's Ark is notable because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not because it is in the Bible, or features in the mythology of the Abrahamic religions. In particular, notability is not dependant on anyone's culture or how well children's books sell. The first sentence makes clear the association with Abrahamic religions, and this is the link to its notability. Scholars are into this stuff. After that, it's for the rest of the article to discuss what reliable and notable sources have to say on the matter.

It seems we have found some consensus for the content of the first couple of the sentences (for the most part), and now we're just trying to clear it up. Everything you've proposed so far seems to be against those goals though. You want to change the content, and seem more interested in getting your Sunday School teacher's point of view across than making things plain and simple for readers. Furthermore, you seem to be applying interpretation of the words 'notability', 'neutrality', etc instead of applying the actual policies. As you can imagine, all of that is fairly frustrating, so can I ask you to please work with us, and within the scope of Wikipedia's policies as opposed to your feelings on the matter? It would be a good idea to read through WP:N and WP:NPOV. They're quite specific, as opposed to allowing editors to interpret the words 'notability', 'neutrality', etc for themselves. Cheers, Ben (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a probably a first, but I wholly agree with Ben. I am also happy with Ben's tweak to my suggestion above. Unless Til can see something that I've missed then hopefully we can move forward with that version.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

FimusTauri/Ben this is not the first time. The Genesis story and bible stories are notable, having received significant coverage by secondary sources, and it seems peculiar that most such sources would segregate the ark from the context of its biblical story, unless discussing its origins or related works. The first sentence is being gutted (and the repeated cheers is annoying). So I won't be contributing or returning anytime soon unless its to weigh in on another RFC or the like. Cheerio. Modocc (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)