User talk:Dezoekster

Welcome!

Hello, Dezoekster! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Noah’s ark

Someone set the subheading back to fictional ship so I changed it to biblical ship. Brennan1111 (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Noah's Ark are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Opinions on Noah's Ark are not relevant, article talk pages are not web forums. If you are think there are unreliable sources in the article, take them up at WP:RSN. Note that holy texts are not reliable for statements of historical fact. Doug Weller talk 15:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was answering a question that was specifically asked of me and what I wrote is completely relevant to the discussion and the Wikipedia page Noah’s Ark. Otherwise I wouldn’t have written it. I agree that some texts in the Holy Bible are meant to be symbolic but most are not. It doesn’t matter how many people refuse to believe the story of Noah’s Ark, that doesn’t change the fact that it actually happened. Where is the proof that it didn’t? Dezoekster (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Our Heavenly Father loved his many yet unborn children too much to allow them to come to such a wicked world." Most editors will take issue with this sort of tone. It would be good for an encyclopedia written by a church but not for a secular encyclopedia like Wikipedia. I encourage you to read Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I read the entire thing and am more convinced than ever that there is obvious bias towards assuming that the great flood and Noah’s ark didn’t happen according to the Genesis narrative. Wikipedia isn’t supposed to take sides like that or make unwarranted assumptions. Dezoekster (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are convinced then you could provide relevant info backed by reliable sources that verify it. According to the verifiability policy,

Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s been published in many reliable sources. If you searched hard enough you could probably find some of our founding fathers writing about it. Most of what I am familiar with are religious documents. Dezoekster (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check the reliable sources guideline. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dezoekster I’m not going to argue with you but if you had actually read the article you’d see the scientific evidence. Also see Genesis flood narrative. If you don’t believe ehat science says Wikipedia isn’t a good fit for you. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are joking, I hope! Dezoekster (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I’m not completely right. So long as you stay away from religious and scientific subjects, you should be okay for the most part you seem to do so. Doug Weller talk 21:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We were talking about Noah’s Ark. If that’s not religious, I don’t know what is! Dezoekster (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meant "and" and not "in" in the post you replied to. Of course it's religious, it's about faith, not science. Wikipedia is meant to take sides for scientific issues, eg dismiss Creationism. We are a mainstream encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 08:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't put it that way. It's not about taking sides but reflecting what reliable sources say about a topic. Many topics are not scientific but of other areas of knowledge. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thinker78 as I pointed out above. Loads of topics they can edit if they use reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, about this other statement, If you don’t believe ehat science says Wikipedia isn’t a good fit for you. I humbly say it is not about believing, no one is required to believe what science says, it is simply about respecting Wikipedia's guidance on how to edit and discuss things.

Per WP:VERIFY,

[Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or unpublished original research.

But I understand your point that Dezoekster shouldn't try to edit in a proselytization kind of way. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I was not editing but answering someone’s question in a discussion. My only edit was to remove the unscientific assumptions out of the Noah’s Ark page. Assuming that Noah didn’t exist or that the flood didn’t engulf the entire world is ignoring all kinds of unexplained phenomena and I just think Wikipedia should steer clear of assumptions. For instance, assuming that God may or may not have used evolution in the creation of the world is immaterial. Science doesn’t care who or why the earth was created but when and how. Let science prove what science can prove and leave religion to the experts. Dezoekster (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit, Our Heavenly Father loved his many yet unborn children, sounded like proselytization. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a geological fact there was no global flood. It's also a fact that all humans except Noah's family were killed in a flood, ditto all the animals except those on the Ark. Fact, no assumptions. Doug Weller talk 08:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to contradict you but there is no way to prove that the global flood did not exist. One could argue that some or perhaps many geologists agree that there appears to be no known way a global flood could have occurred or something like that. Dezoekster (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't trust science so of course you would say that. But it's not geologists who point out that not all living organisms except a few Noah's family and a few pairs of animals) died at one time. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I trust science, it is a great method to find truth but it isn’t the only way to find truth. Dezoekster (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a geological fact there was no global flood. Im not sure. After all, the oceans were formed at one point in the geological history. That may have been in the form of a global flood. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thinker78 There may have been a global ocean 4 billion years ago (which wouldn't necessarily have been created by a flood), but we are talking about a flood that wipe out most living things, right? Let's not confuse things by changing the topic.But that's my fault in part as I should have mentioned earlier I was talking about a Noah's global flood, although I still know of no evidence for a g;lobal flood even 4 billions years ago. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]