Talk:Noah/Archive 3

message: I gave this section a major re-write, with two aims in mind - first, to concentrate more closely on the actual life and achievements of Noah, as given in the book of Genesis, as the existing section seemd to me to wander off too often into explanations and not quite relevant detail (details suitable for a theological paper, perhaps, but not for a general encyclopedia); and second, I wanted to integrate this article with the existing Noah's Ark article, as I can't see any reason why the two articles should repeat so much information about this topic. Naturally this is only a proposal, and I want to start some discussion rather than impose my views. PiCo 13:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life of Noah 

message: I deleted this section because, when I followed the link to the main article, it seemed to me that these "laws" might not actually exist, except as a matter of speculation. The linked article is very unclear, but it gives the impression that these so-called "laws" have some connection with some branch of modern Jewish thought, but are not generally accpeted -= in other words, are very marginal. If this is so, the subject doesn't merit a whole section in this article. But I'm happy to hear from anyone who can shed some light on this. PiCo 10:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seven Noahide Laws 

message: On 10 March an anonymous editor ermoved the final sentence of this paragraph:
"Brigham Young was a vocal advocate of the doctrine that people of African ancestry were under the curse of Ham, and that this curse was a rationalization for slavery and societal bans on interracial marriage. He believed this curse remained in people with even a single black ancestor, and that even Ethiopian and Yemeni Jews were denied the blessings of Jewish heritage due to their own Black-African ancestry. In 1978 the church announced a "revelation" renouncing its policy of excluding blacks from the priesthood, but it has never officially stated that the "curse of Ham" doctrine was false."
So far as I know the sentence is true, and it also seems an important and relevant piece of information - the Curse of Ham is part of the Noah story, it was quoted to justify racism, and it hasn't been officially renounced. Unless someone can show good reason for deleting it, I intend to put it back in. (Haven't put it back yet, but I will unless given good reason not to). PiCo 00:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latter-day Saints and the Curse of Ham 

message: A recent editor removed the bulk of the content of this section. Please explain massive edits like that if you feel them to be necessary. I'm reverting because of the lack of explanation. PiCo 06:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythological connections 

message: I have deleted the "prophets in Islam" template. It does not belong in the article. Templates of that nature "hog" page space for one religion vs. another. (I have also deleted the "Adam to David" template for the same reasons). FYI: This article is about Noah, not Islam or Judaism (or Christianity). If you want to link to Prophets in Islam, that's ok, but the template is overkill. As it stands, there were way too many Quran links at the bottom of the article. It was getting to be a violation of WP:NPOV. I have added a pointer link the correct page and deleted all the Noah/Quran links at the bottom. Merecat 09:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the Islamic prophet, we have Nuh. Tom Harrison Talk 22:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophets in Islam 

message: FYI, there is an article, which appears to be a CFORK of this one, at Noach (parsha) which is being considered for deletion. I don't know if there is any content in that article which is worthy of being merged with this one, but if there is, please migrate it over. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFORK merge candidate 

message: I have set up auto archiving for this talk page. If there is objection feel free to revert. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: The flood was a real histoic event (I'm not saying that the Noah story is real, but the flood was real). Learn more on Santorini. --178.197.236.244 (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The hypothesis on Santorini tries to explain the exodus from Egypt, not the flood Noah survived. Could you spare us your uninformed "theory" that you're spamming on talk pages?--Atlan (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not only a myth 

message: Quran only states that Noah (peace be upon him) had been living, among the people who he was sent to, for 950 years when the flood started; hence, the period which Noah lived before the flood; not necessary his age. Therefore, the claim in the article about his age must not be presented as a fact, and should be replaced by a translation for Quran 29:14.
The claim: Noah's age as described in the Quran is 950 years.[29]
Translation by Mohd Asad for Quran29:14
وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا نُوحًا إِلَىٰ قَوْمِهِ فَلَبِثَ فِيهِمْ أَلْفَ سَنَةٍ إِلَّا خَمْسِينَ عَامًا فَأَخَذَهُمُ الطُّوفَانُ وَهُمْ ظَالِمُونَ
"And, indeed, [in times long past] We sent forth Noah unto his people, and he dwelt among them a thousand years bar fifty; and then the floods over­whelmed them while they were still lost in evildoing"
--AhmadZuhair (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noah's Age in Quran 

message: We've got an IP hopper from the Philippines here insisting on pov and inaccurate information in the infobox.
1. We should not use the infobox to assert material about Noah as factual. I guess we could attribute it (and his alleged birthdate isn't in the Bible of course so it would have to be attributed differently).
2. Born in Ancient Israel? That's obviously ridiculous and makes us look ignorant. The Bible doesn't say where he was born, and who claims Israel existed at that time? I'm sure some people do, but that doesn't mean it should be in the article.
 
If this continues I'll ask for semi-protection. Not reverting as that would put me at 3RR and the IP is hopping. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy and NPOV 

message: Under the section:
Searches for Noah's Ark
Change:
Despite many expeditions, no scientific evidence of the ark has been found.
To:
Although there is no scientific proof of the ark's location, there are sites that have historically been closely scrutinized by the media, such as the Durupınar site.
Add the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durupınar_site
Because:
Historical analysis has been used at this site along with semi-scientific methods, such as aerial mapping, metal detecting, ground penetrating radar, comparison of dimensions to historical documents, local area claims, iron samples. Additionally, the Durupınar site has few links to it and make it more difficult for wikipedians to find.
70.211.6.107 (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.  RudolfRed (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2014 

message: Notice this edit.  Obviously WP:MOS requires an en-dash rather than a hyphen for ranges of numbers, including, most frequently, years and pages, but also including letters of the alphabet and other numbers. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punnctuation 

message: Is there a WP-wide policy on the translation or non-translation of the Arabic for God, Allah?  It seems obfuscating and gratuitously divisive to fail to translate the term. Tom Haws (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Allah" why not "God"? 

message: An idea has occurred to me that might solve some problems. 
* Move Comparative mythology to become a section containing Greek and Hindu people. Add more parallel Noahs if there are any.
* Leave all/most of Mesopotamian stuff in Origins as a section. Maybe Babylonian stuff could go in Comparative mythology too, leaving Sumerian stuff in Origins.
This gets over the confusion of origins with parallel Noahs. Myrvin (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New format suggestion 

message: Some WP:weasel words are creeping in to this article. I have tagged "few doubt". There is also "Many scholars believe", and "is believed". 
* I can't find the first of these in the source cited. Although this is a poor citation having 'pages=70-'; suggesting anywhere after page 69, which is not good enough. I see that the words used to have quotation marks around them, saying that they are actually in the source. But these were removed later. I have found them on p 70. I'll put a larger quote in and fix the ref.
* I don't know if the cited source says "many scholars believe", if not, the assertion needs more than one source - and even then it's dodgy. The next citation just says "Bottero, (2001:21–22)" - I can't find what this is. There is a French Jean Bottéro who wrote things like Birth of God: The Bible and the Historian and several French texts. Surely there must be a better reference.
* The two "is believed" might be OK, but it is listed as a weasel phrase. Myrvin (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words