Talk:Noah's Ark

Academic vs. Jewish

Koakh, you have accurately summarized this dispute by describing the current structure as "secular academic approach," while your own version treats the story of Noah as "Jewish cultural property". That description is right on.

In an article like this, which discusses a story that is an integral part of the three leading Western religions, as well as a cultural icon, we should certainly prefer the secular academic approach. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that follows. We should give all approaches, without preference. (At least the Jewish and academic, the others are derivative.) (I have the same issue with the header of The Exodus.) Look at the questions under NPOV.Mzk1 (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think what is needed is first the narrative, which Ravpapa is suggesting should be related from a "secular academic approach", then information on each of the involved religions' (i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Islam -- and perhaps even some of the minor Abrahamic religions, if relevant) views on the meaning of the narrative. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Hrafn (is that a Hungarian name?). That is exactly what I meant. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(No, it's Old Norse -- with similar/identical words in Old English, and modern-various-Scandinavian-languages. It is the word from which the modern English 'raven' derives from. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC) )

Let me introduce you to a concept called chronology. This is where something is described in terms of the sequence it is recorded by historians. As it happens the "secular academic approach" is recorded commencing sometime in the 19th century, and therefore finds itself right at the end of the article. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that we're dealing with myth, not history, what relevance does the chronological order in which viewpoints developed have to do with anything? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever your opinion, I am dealing with Jewish cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible. As such it will be dealt with in a factual manner appropriate to an encyclopedia. Academic viewpoints could not have developed prior to the establishment of the culture. Also, the reader ought to be familiarised with that culture before they are immersed in its critical analysis Koakhtzvigad (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I quite simply do not see what relevance all this WP:SOAPBOXing of yours has to improving the article. The chronological order in which viewpoints developed is largely IRRELEVANT. And this narrative does not belong solely to a single culture -- so I see no reason to single out a single culture for preferential treatment. I would therefore request that you put your blatant POV-pushing on hold. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Second what Hrafn said. Koak, please take the time to familiarize yourself with the basic pillars of this project and it's various policies because what you want to do appears in conflict with them. Cheers. Griswaldo (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, no need to be testy. Koakh, I commend you on taking your arguments to the talk page, rather than edit warring, which would be obstructive and probably draw sanctions. But let's take things one at a time. It is my impression that you are disturbed not by the content of the article, but by the order in which things are presented. Do you feel that the article Noah in rabbinic literature and the section on Rabbinic Jewish traditions adequately cover the subject? That is, the problem in your eyes is not one of content, but of presentation. Is that right? --Ravpapa (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not all. You should read the exchanges above and look at the edit history of the entry. Kaokh wanted to put in a version of the entry that combines the basic narrative with Jewish commentary. He is also unhappy about the version being used, because it comes from a Christian bible, and not the Torah. If there are any significant differences, I would support an attempt to rewrite it from the Torah. However, I am 100% against presenting the narrative with Jewish commentary interwoven in it. I am also 100% against structuring the entry in a way to emphasize how this narrative is the "cultural property" of any one of the groups that find it meaningful. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ravpapa: I would be considerably less "testy" if Koakhtzvigad demonstrated some small interest in the article as a whole, as opposed to being solely interested in the promotion of the Jewish viewpoint. Such naked cultural chauvinism and avowals of cultural WP:OWNERSHIP get very wearying very fast. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Koakh wants the "Jewish tradition" section combined with the "Narrative summary" section on the grounds (though he hasn't said this) that the two are parts of a single whole, being the Written and the Oral Torah. In Judaism the two are of equal authority and equal antiquity, both deriving from Moses. Koakh's biggest handicap (and I'm not trying to insult him) is a failure to fully explain himself. PiCo (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Give the boy a chance to speak for himself. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Before he does, I'd like to speak to a particular point made here. This is a complete distortion of the ownership issue, which refers to editors. Flood narratives do belong to many cultures, but the Noah narrative is a specifically Jewish narrative, because it comes from the Jewish Bible. The fact that Christians have appropriated (I am using mild language here) it does not make it theirs. Do Christians have independent traditions about Noah? (Muslims do claim this, but they were published later, so it is at least a matter of order, or perhaps a separate article.) I am not arguing anything about the article itself (of course Christian opinions can be presented); I am only addressing myself to this point.Mzk1 (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. The earliest written version we have is an Ancient Israelite narrative. That narrative has become part of several contemporary traditions. Did it become part of the tradition we know as Judaism before it became part of Christianity and Islam? Sure, but before it was part of what we now understand as "Judaism," it was part of older proto-Jewish Israelite traditions. This idea of "cultural ownership" is ridiculous and completely off base. We can be clear about the history of the story, and we can put the Jewish materials first, since they are older, but there is no one culture or religion that owns this story.Griswaldo (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That claim is itself POV. If you want to claim my attitude is also, I will not argue, but yours is not the only legitimate one. I was mainly arguing Jewish-versus-Christian in this case.Mzk1 (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You are arguing a Jewish POV, that's the problem. I'm not arguing a Christian POV, or any other POV of that kind. I'm arguing the detached POV of scholarship. We are not going to adopt the Jewish ... or Christian ... or Muslim POVs when we write this entry. Sorry, we will cover them all, but no one of them will dictate how we cover this story. Case closed. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The critical-historical view is a POV. That is the problem with your argument.Mzk1 (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, I'm curious to know what you mean by a "version" of the story of Noah's ark. Are you implying there's more than one? Because so far as I know, the story in the Hebrew bible is the only one. The old Babylonian and Assyrian stories about arks aren't about Noah, even if the author of the Noah story used them as his source (and he certainly did). I guess what I'm trying to say is, I see this article as being about a story, one specific story, the one in the Book of Genesis. If we talk about other stories - like the one in the Koran, or the Atrahasis one - it should only be to discuss how the Noah story used them, or was used by them. PiCo (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the noah in (say) the koran is not really noah, or doesn't count, or something like that?

One could frame the argument such that that there's only one Noah story and that each literary instance is a different version which might get its own discussion; I could live with that. Or one could frame it such that there are several different Noah stories and each gets its own discussion; that might be fair, although it doesn't really do justice to the many reliable sources which have connected them much more closely. But to frame it so that there's only one Noah story which is identified with one specific text so that the other texts are secondary - well, a narrative like that would appear severely POV to me. bobrayner (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

PiCo what post of mine are you responding to exactly? Where I mentioned the "earliest written version" being and Ancient Israelite narrative? I'm assuming earlier versions existed prior to the version we have in the Hebrew bible, prior to that story being written down. Heck I assume other versions existed in writing prior to the finalization of the Jewish scripture as well. Is there something odd about those assumptions? In that post I was not speaking of other flood narratives that have survived from the general region, but to the assumption of prior versions of this flood myth. Though there was another assumption there as well, because we have at least one notable slightly different "version" in the Quran (post dating the written version in the Hebrew bible), and I think that should be discussed in the entry as well. I agree with you that the story in Genesis is the primary story here, and that we should present a summation of that text as the story. Koakh, above, seemed to suggest that the stories found in various Christian bibles are also different "versions," but while I'm no expert I was not aware of any significant narrative differences, at least any that would appear in a summation of the basic plot movements of the story. Though, like I said above, using a translation from the Hebrew bible sounds just fine to me, if it makes any difference.Griswaldo (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

And not to quibble, but there are many new versions of this story, all based on the same biblical source, but new versions nonetheless. Consider all the children's versions you might find in print, etc. I don't say that because it is meaningful to the entry, but simply to point out that "versions" do exist.Griswaldo (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've read through this entire thread again and I must say that people seem to me to be talking art cross-purposes - they seem to have much more in common than they perhaps realise. Bobrayner, my defin ition of the subject of this article is that it's about a story, the one in the Hebrew bible, which we have to treat in English translation because this is English wiki. Whether it's also historical fact, as well as a story, (which some Christians and Jews today believe) is not for us to say. Personally I believe it's not, but I try to keep that out of my approach. Griswaldo, I agree that it's possible there were earlier written versions of the ancient story, but since we don't have those versions, we can't say much about them. (As I'm sure you know, scholars do say they can find two earlier stories inside the current one). As for Koakh, I think his concern is a slightly different one: I think he believes that the written Noah-flood story is only half the story, and that the Oral Torah has equal authority. The Oral Torah is pretty much what's currently in the "Jewish tradition" section, although in fact it's just a very few selections from a very large body of tradition. Christians generally aren't even aware that the Oral Torah exists, but it's very important to Jews. I also wonder whether this discussion is going anywhere - is anyone making any suggestions about how to improve the article? PiCo (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Fudai, Iwate

Can somebody tell me why an obscure village in Japan is relevant to this article? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

And no, the fact that they faced very different forms of flooding in very different circumstances and reacted in very different ways does not make it relevant. If we included every article related to flooding/tsunamis/etc in the 'see-also's, that section would be longer than than the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture section

I removed this section as:

1. It was wholly unsourced
2. It did nothing to "explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances" per {{In popular culture}}
3. Such section inevitably act as a dumping ground for trivia.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

When did it happen?

After Harold Camping predicted The Rapture, he stated that he had figured out the date of The Flood. It was about 5000 years off, and certainly before the date generally accepted by those who believe the Bible literally. I was surprised not to find the date the literalists accept here, but when I did find it, I put it in the article. I soon found out that even those who take the Bible literally don't agree on the date of creation, but the most accepted of the dates seemed to be a good idea. I figured no one would question the research of an archbishop, at least for the archbishop's own calculation.

Now I did misread one of those small numbers and didn't know how to verify what I had seen, but I think if all you want to do is figure the date of The Flood based on a literal reading of Genesis and the most accepted of the dates of creation, there must surely be a qualifying reliable source somewhere. I get that some people want to doubt anything these web sites say, but they got it from somewhere.

As for me I believe the Earth is 4 billion years old, but for those that hold the other view, the information should be here.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that Camping is hardly a WP:RS, or even a prominent viewpoint on "the date of The Flood", I don't really think he should be included in the article. And "the date of creation" belongs in Dating creation, not here. Given that the scientific consensus is that the flood did not occur, it is unlikely that any source that claims a date for it will be deemed reliable. This particularly applies to most creationist websites, that ubiquitously have a bad reputation for poor fact-checking and for misrepresentation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the large volume of attention that Camping's chronology received from other sources (albeit mostly due to a date he set for a different religious event), I think it might be worth a passing mention, appropriately framed - even if he's no Ussher. Sure, such people and their religious commentary are not reliable sources in the sense that we can use them to state "The flood happened on date X"; but they are reliable sources for their own beliefs, so it's fine to say "Harold Camping calculated that the flood happened on date X". No need for more than those few words, though, as this isn't really an article about reconstructing biblical chronologies. bobrayner (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I started to mention Camping but given that he was so many years off, his view wouldn't belong under the literalists' date anyway. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, we needn't give literalists a monopoly on interpretation of a religious text! bobrayner (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I would point out that it is only Camping's end date that received a "large volume of attention" -- as far as I can see neither the chronology he used to calculate it, nor his start/creation date (let alone his flood date) does not seem to have received that much notice. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Archaeology

[ Moved from User talk:Hrafn ]

Would you care to offer a source for Noah's Ark: Archaeology - if you are not happy with Pritchard (his book is only a collection of translations of all Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament including The Flood). I would be interested in seeing your source.

Or are you going to leave that section of the Noah's Ark article without citing any sources? Lung salad (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Discussion of articles belongs on article talk, not user talk.
2. Mulling it over since I last edited the article, I have a number of major problems with this section that go well beyond its sourcing:
   1. As nothing in the section pertains to archaeological evidence for or against the existence of Noah's Ark, its title is more than a bit misleading.
   2. As it is concerned with flood myths generally, not the Genesis flood in particular, it is more than a little off-topic.
   3. As it is talking about 19th century discoveries, rather than the current state of scholarship on the subject, it is more than a little irrelevant on that front as well.
3. On sourcing:
   1. That Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament "contain [sic] the translation of the Sumerian Deluge myth involving Ziusudra, translated by Samuel Noah Kramer. Pages 104-106 contain [sic] the translation of the Akkadian Flood myth involving Atrahasis, translated by Ephraim Avigdor Speiser" does not WP:Verify the material in the section -- which mentions neither Ziusudra nor Atrahasis.
   2. Likewise neither some random bibliography nor an Amazon blurb WP:Verifys it.
   3. Nor does the fact that this source WP:Verifys Atra-Hasis make it relevant -- as (as I pointed out above) the section does not mention Atra-Hasis/Atrahasis.

For the lack-of-relevance reasons (2.2 & 2.3 above), compounded by the lack of a citation-that-actually-verifies, and the misleading title. I'm proposing the removal of this section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)