Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:08, 17 May 2009

	Noah's Ark is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 12, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted April 20, 2009 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bible This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Arabic transliteration

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

3rd most important idea changing the world

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Dictionary.com: Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad footnotes

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

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

Narrative vs mythology

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion at Editors assistance requests

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

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

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

Hrafn_Stalk(P) 15:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

RFC re: "mythology" charaterization

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

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

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Bible articles
• Unknown-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles