Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Gilgamesh flood myth is vopied from the atrahasis epic the bible has no evidence of literally borrowing and flood myths aren’t unique 176.72.71.133 (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The are several major mistakes in the current page. The Bible did not 'borrow' from the Gilgamesh saga. If you actually read the earliest texts you will see there are significant differences between the Biblical narrative and the Gilgamesh saga.
Secondly, the Biblical account was written before the saga of Gilgamesh.
Thirdly there is copious amount of evidence showing that a cataclysmic flood occurred and indeed covered the world. Mass fossil graveyards show animals bent into positions that are reminiscent of drowning. The fact that so many creatures were buried alive, shows the event was singular and incredible amounts of liquid materials were involved.
IP, while you are correct that the current standard version of The Epic of Gilgamesh is that from the Library of Ashurbanipal, and therefore dates to the first millennium BCE, if you refer to our page on the Epic, you will see that there is evidence for a cohesive narrative version dating back to the Old Babylonian tablets (ca. 1800 BCE), and evidence for fragmentary poems and bits of narrative dating farther back to the Third Dynasty of Ur. Whatever one's thoughts about faith, I know of no scholars who contend that the biblical narrative was composed anything like this early. I'll leave the flood for another day, but suffice it to say that there is not a scholarly consensus for the position you put forward. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll deal with that standard YEC nonsense. See [1][2].
Josephus came from a priestly family, and while his stated approach to history (essentially, being even-handed) is laudable, there is no doubt he has a particular slant and emphasis to his accounts. He even says in Antiquities that he is, in essence, repeating Jewish records. He was certainly ahead of the curve, but I don't think he can be accurately described as a "secular historian." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So Antiquities of the Jews shouldn't be considered historically accurate because it has Jewish records about their own history? Doesn't make any sense what you say. Why he can't be considered secular he literally worked for the Roman Emperor which didn't take very kindly to their monotheistic religion which in turn lead to the Jewish Roman wars and destruction of Second Temple. Do you think the Romans would take kindly to Josephus writing Judaic religious polemics considering what they have done to the Jews? R Onlyloss6973 (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is more that Josephus tells us quite explicitly that he bases his accounts, inter alia, on "Hebrew scriptures." Moreover, Antiquities is not, and was not meant to be, a neutral account of events. His goal was to legitimize the Jewish tradition in the eyes of what we might broadly call the European world. None of this invalidates Josephus in any way, but it does mean we should be careful to keep his works in their proper context. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So all Roman history should be considered non neutral too because it was written by Roman themselves? What about germanics or Gauls they were all written by the Romans since none could write should they be considered non historical? Onlyloss6973 (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not "non historical," but Roman historians too have to be used with great care, No one believes Tacitus was on hand to hear the speech delivered by Calgacus, for instance. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not impossible that Calgacus actually gave a speech before a battle. If he gave a speech before battle with Agricola we don't know for sure though it isn't impossible, it is certain the speech is not true since Tacitus didn't know Celtic but he could still have given a speech. Opposing troops weren't that far from eachother in battles before modern warfare so it not a far fetched claim. Generals and kings always gave speeches before battle. Josephus claims shouldn't be considered pseudoarchaeological but unknown to be true or false. I gave a great counter argument to what Dimadick said and still I haven't got an answer. Onlyloss6973 (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that you have a valid counter argument, but if you can establish consensus for a change, then by all means make it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You disagree by giving no argument. Wow what a nice disagreement. Clearly not biased. Shows again how reliable Wikipedia is with people like you being editors. At least Wikipedia itself acknowledges it is not a reliable source of information so that is good, at least it will not induce people in error. Also he still didn't answer in what capacity you are to defend his claims? Onlyloss6973 (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also didn't even give arguments to even defend it is claims you just said no and left giving no argument lol. You are literally like a meme refusing to elaborate and leaving. Onlyloss6973 (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also didn't even respond to what I said. You ignored all my arguments and everything I said you gave no argument nothing. You basically said no and left lol. You are pathetic. You act like a literal meme and please stop saying cheers like you won the argument you didn't even argue in order to win an argument with me ok? It is annoying. Everytime you said something I came with an argument which you have zero absolutely zero answer to give and you refuse everything I said without giving any argument. Onlyloss6973 (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also what consensus with who to talk. Nobody is arguing with me just you but you are not even arguing you just refuse everything I say without giving any argument for what I say. Who is the consensus there is nobody talking Dimadick didn't even give any reply to what I said is he the consensus? You are the consensus? Onlyloss6973 (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment, Dimadick and myself would appear to be. If you can convince a few other people, then you can ignore us. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who are the other people? How can I convince someone who is insanely biased and it seems you are only one actually he said nothing for hours. Onlyloss6973 (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and practices. It may suggest some answers to your questions. WP:CONSENSUS would be a reasonable place to start. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision making. It involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It is accepted as the best method to achieve the Five Pillars—Wikipedia's goals. Consensus on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Who is addressing my legitimate concerns through a process of compromise? Who? Tell me who? You? You are compromising absolutely nothing with me you refuse everything I say without giving any argument. You thought I was going to back down with your pathetic attempt to silence my arguments. You didn't. I am very familiar with Wikipedia my friend. I know it isn't a trustworthy source of information Wikipedia acknowledges itself. Cheers!!! Onlyloss6973 (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are really pitiful because you have zero logic in a conversation. A conversation requires two parties consensus on debating on something. I am debating with walls here. Have a wonderful night friend!!! Onlyloss6973 (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack? Oh I am sorry friend. I offended you by being pitiful. I didn't know having pity and mercy are considered personal attacks. Maybe you might want to learn this words someday when you donate to a beggar or disabled person but I am very sure you are doing them very often by your generous personality and character. Onlyloss6973 (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway going back to my arguments since nobody has given me any arguments to my claims can I reach the consensus that nobody answered my arguments. Is this a possible consensus to reach by now? Or do I require external approval? Since nobody has being giving any reason why my claims are false and wrong Onlyloss6973 (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on you to establish a consensus, which is usually done by persuasion. I am not currently seeing a consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is reached after claims are approved or denied by factual and proven facts. I have been given no proven and factual facts for my claims Onlyloss6973 (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rejecting my claims without any factual arguments or information isn't called consensus at all. So I should freely edit the page until people come with actual factual arguments and information to reject my claims. Should I do that? Onlyloss6973 (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly can, but you will be reverted. Be mindful that there is a hard limit of 3 non-consecutive revert edits per day. Consensus means a general agreement among involved editors (though it need not be unanimous). To this point, I haven't seen anyone agreeing with you, but that could certainly change. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if he got his information from an archaeologist the information shouldn't be considered accurate? We certainly don't know where he got his information so I don't know why you say he got it from folklore that is your own assumptions without any proof of them. But considering his social status it isn't impossible that he got his information from an archaeologist. Why should we deny the information just because he wasn't an archaeologist? Onlyloss6973 (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that no ancient author, or medieval author, or even every early modern author, is reliable in the sense of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Often, such authors are the only source we have for all or part of what they have written about. It is nice if they wrote about something they witnessed, such as Pliny the Younger's description of the eruption of Vesuvius, but all too often they wrote about things they heard from others, as second- or third-hand accounts or as legend or myth, or maybe from written accounts that had similar origins. I will discuss a more recent example that I am familiar with from my editing on WP. The Inca Garcilaso de la Vega wrote an account of the Hernando de Soto expedition called The History of the Conquest of Florida, more commonly call Florida of the Inca. People like to quote and cite that book because it is colorful and full of detail. The problem is that the Inca was not there, and wrote his book 40 years later, while other surviving sources about the de Soto expedition written by people who were on the expedition. So, we have established historians making comments on the Inca's work such as, Milanich and Hudson state that the Inca is unreliable on details of the expedition's itinerary, and note that some historians regard the Inca's account as "more a work of literature than a work of history"., Hann warns that there are many errors in the account produced by the Inca., and Lankford characterizes Garcilaso's La Florida as a collection of "legend narratives," derived from a much-retold oral tradition of the survivors of the expedition. That is why we limit our reliance on primary sources and require independent, secondary, reliable sources for interpretation and analysis of primary sources such as Josephus. Donald Albury21:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One can easily turn to sources on the subject. Take The Role of Noah and the Flood in Judean Antiquities and Against Apion by Flavius Josephus which identifies Josephus's narrative on Noah and the Flood as part of Josephus's apologetic goals and thus to be taken with a grain of salt. Or peruse the many articles on Google Scholar under "reliability of Josephus" which discuss at length his accuracy. I should make clear though: the lead is not calling Josephus a pseudo-archaeologist. It's saying that searches for the Ark are pseudo-archaeology. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓03:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that's RalphEllis. I just blocked the editor permanently - they made it clear that they didn't like the website, and the nicest thing they said about me may have been hoping I'll die of cancer. Sadly there's no doubt that they will get their wish. Doug Wellertalk09:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, the Ancients did write WP:RS is a pretty specific claim. Do you think that there are many people who posit such idea (well, not uninformed people, just people who won't take no for an answer)? tgeorgescu (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. But I doubt a RalphEllis sock would have committed suicide by Admin. Unless I misremember them. He certainly didn't like me, but nothing like this guy who didn't even seem to know me. Doug Wellertalk10:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"and the nicest thing they said about me may have been hoping I'll die of cancer." I tyically hear such sweet talk from my next-door-neighbor. At least you will not have to interact with that creep again. Dimadick (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CycoMa2 recently tagged reference number 2 as needing a page number, and fair enough--but it's actually listed (page 2), it is simply not appearing. I am weak on ISBN cites; does anyone know offhand how to fix this? On a related note, my reading of the source is that the flood myths go back to the Early Dynastic II period rather than the Old Babylonian. If anyone feels like double checking me on that, I would appreciate it. Cheers and Happy Friday to all. Dumuzid (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
