Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:10, 15 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.
	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, wikipedia 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)

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)

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)

• 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