Talk:Johan's Ark

message: Apologies for this rather sub standard article, it is my first and I don't really know much about the subject. I just saw an article about it on the BBC and was rather dismayed there was no article about it on Wikipedia.
I would be grateful for anyone who adds details about it as it seems a rather interesting subject. Caffm8 14:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it actually all wood, or does it have a steel hull with wood cladding? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 01:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The black thing in the water is a steel hull; the Ark on top is all wood. Ceinturion 06:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Expand

message: nl:Ark van Johan Caffm8 16:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to Dutch Wikipedia Article

message: Hi Caffm8, great idea to start this article in the English Wikipedia. I am glad you found the panorama picture useful. I was wondering if you had considered already changing the name to Johan's Ark, because that's closer to Noah's Ark. In Dutch it came to be called Ark van Johan because that's close to Ark van Noach. Ceinturion 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the page since it is policy to use English names even though I am not entirely convinced. When things are named by their creator it feels right to leave them as is IMHO. Caffm8 21:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he is not so vain to call it Ark van Johan. For him it is humbly Ark, or Ark van Noach. Ceinturion 06:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ark van Johan/Johan's Ark

message: If it has to be floated around on pontoons it is clearly not a ship. I changed the word to "vessel", which is what the original Ark is called in its article. Steve Dufour 12:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a ship

message: Who exactly are you to make up new, unheard of rules and guidelines and insist that we follow them?  I am talking about rules you just made up yourself like "External links do not count" for establishing notability, and this gem: "External links are not references".  External links are not references?? Huh??  How ridiculous!  These made-up rules and snobbish pretensions that the subject is not notable enough for you personally, are merely masks for your underlying hostility to the subject and your desire to prevent readers from accessing this notable information on Wikipedia that they can easily find elsewhere. Maybe the best page for you to read is WP:DICK. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't make up rules as you go along. Follow the Guidelines 

message: No, external links are not references. References are things that let you verify the contents of an article. Dumping a bunch of links into the 'External Links' section of an article is about as useful as tits on a bull. It isn't until somebody, like maybe .... ME, comes along and actually turns these links into citations, and modifies the article where they don't match the sources, that they become in any way useful. So I would suggest that you (1) read WP:DICK yourself & (2) actually do something to improve an article instead of jumping up and down on those who are actually attempting to do a bit of quality control (and improvement). HrafnTalkStalk 14:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Do something useful for a change

message: Before whining about my characterisation of Pat Robertson, I suggest you read Pat Robertson controversies. People who advocate the assassination of foreign leaders & 'prophesy' natural disasters for towns who vote against their wishes can reasonably be characterised as "nutcases".
On Christian Broadcasting Network, I refer you to the article which states:
On top of it being a mere "production company", CBN is often cited for its extreme conservative Christian bias, bringing it under WP:V#Questionable sources. HrafnTalkStalk 14:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pat Robertson & CBN 

message: Is it a bit misleading? To say that Johan followed the biblical instructions to build the ark, when the ark is supported by a steel frame.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvador.Oropeza (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And the bible does not provide blueprints. Arnoutf (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steel frame 

message: ? 178.232.132.181 (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it did crash into a (moored) Norwegen coastguard vessel and was seriously damaged. It has already been added in the article. Arnoutf (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the vessel involved in an accident in Oslo in 2016? 

message: What is the designations of the large vessel and what is the designation of the smaller vessel, according to Netherland? Is this article about the larger vessel, or are both vessels part of a project etc. known as Jonah's Ark. The lead's opening line mentions only one barge. Is the smaller barge a (smaller) replica, or a sister "ship"? Are both barges traveling museums or -exhibits? Do references say if both vessels are operated by the same foundation (or other entity)? 46.212.154.194 (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Huibers called both versions Noah's Ark. Johan's Ark was a nickname in the Dutch media while being built (both versions). Today, ten years later, the Dutch are less aware of its existence, so it is simply called Noah's Ark, either with or without irony quotes. If the two versions need to be distinguished it is Huibers' first and second Ark, or Huibers' small and big Ark. Ceinturion (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why so many details about the smaller vessel if this article is about the bigger one? 

message: *"A smaller version from the same corporation exists in Schagen." 
:Comment: If the smaller version swiped a moored government vessel in Norway today, then the above is not true. 46.212.154.194 (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct, as the small Ark sailed away from the Netherlands in 2010 it never returned to Schagen. Ceinturion (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved to discussion 

message: I rewrote the article, removed some confusion between the two arks, updated some links and info, and removed dead links.
I added the actual length of 119 m, as measured both in situ using measuring tape, and on satellite image in Google Earth. Huibers initially planned a length of about 135 m, and this imaginary value is frequently repeated in the media.
Johan's Ark is 119x30x23 meters, and the biblical size is 300x50x30 cubits. Huibers did not state how long he assumed the cubit was, but it is possible to calculate its effective value in two ways. By comparing the lengths, the effective cubit is 119/300 = . By comparing volumes, the effective cubit is [(119x30x23)/(300x50x30)]1/3 = . The biblical cubit is usually assumed to be between  and . 
Ceinturion (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real vs imaginary length