Talk:Noah/Archive 1

message: Details of edits made:
"Historians, however, are agreed that there is no evidence that Noah was a historical figure." reverted/amended to the more accurate "Most modern historians...".
"...which reflects an oral legend tradition older than writing..." amended to "...which they believe reflects an oral legend tradition older than writing...".  The very idea that there was a pre-writing age is unproven.
"...the story of Noah's ark closely parallels that of the much earlier Sumerian Utnapishtim, and scores of other ..." had the words "much earlier" removed.  Extant copies of those records may predate extant copies of the Biblical records, but it doesn't follow that the stories originated earlier.  In fact it was clearly not NPOV as it was, as the following sentence goes on to say (in effect) that some people see this as evidence that the stories all have a common origin, i.e. they all date to the same time.
I didn't change it, but I'm not happy with the term "Biblical fundamentalists" in the sentence "Biblical fundamentalists assert that the story of Noah is a true story...".  Fundamentalism although described as being a return to original principles, is acknowledged as being a recent (early 20th Century) phenomenon, yet the belief the story of Noah is true applies to Christianity historically.  Whether "Traditional Christians" or "Conservative Christians" are better terms, or something else entirely would be better, I'm not sure.
Philip J. Rayment 14:20, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled section about edits 

message: The article reads:
"An interval of one hundred and twenty years elapsed while the ark was being built (6:3), during which Noah tried to convince the people to repent so they could avoid the wrath of God. (Christian interpretations, as seen from Rome in the 2nd century CE, are preserved in the First Epistle of Peter 3:18-20 and the Second Epistle of Peter 2:5)." Peter mentions Noah as "a preacher of righteousness".
and then:
"Later commentaries find two degrees of righteousness, which they demonstrate as a metaphor for a man who is cold: the fully righteous person would set up a fire - that is, help the others."
Did he try to keep the whole thing a secret? Here he was building a "133.5 m by 22.3 m by 13.4 m" something box for forty years and no one knew about it? And in contrast to the tradition he didn't tell anyone why? Because he didn't really care about any other persons moral standards? Or the “men of fame” whipping up violence? - Jerryseinfeld 17:07, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, and I will try to fix the text. According to Rashi, God did intend for the humungous ark-building project to be noticed and questioned by all the people of the world. And the fact that it took 120 years to build would also give plenty of time for people to travel to Noah, ask him why he was doing it, and receive the answer that a flood was coming soon and they'd better repent of their evil ways. The fact that they didn't, on both counts, shows the depths of depravity to which they'd sunk. The comparison of Noah as a "man in a coat" refers not to the people's lack of interest but to his own. In comparison to Abraham, who, when he found out about the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, actively argued with God to save the cities, even if only 50, 40, 30, 20, or 10 righteous people could be found there (see Genesis 18:23-33), we don't hear about Noah arguing with God. Instead, he goes about his own business for 120 years, building the ark that will save him and his family. Yes, he fulfilled God's will, but he didn't put himself out for others. Yoninah 08:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor analysis? 

message: One or more of the sign/s:  placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning were removed by User:Sam Spade, hopefully pending further discussion. I even agree with Sam here! (The category :Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 08:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The {} sign/s

message: It doesn't really seem clear to me what the "Christian Applications" have to do with Noah and/or why they are Christian applications. Maybe an explanation should be added?  Davidfraser 10:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like a preety big copyvio to me. The bellman 10:03, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
I removed the entire section, since the material about Plato was all that was there. I looked in the history to see if there was a better version to revert to, but there does not seem to be any that would not remove good material, so I started a new section about Christian interpretations of Noah, which needs to be expanded. Also, I think that Noah's Greek and Mesopotamian parallels should be mentioned in the article, but I'm not sure where. Academic Challenger 23:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plato unclear? 

message: I re-removed the two POV external links in the body of the text. Wikipedia discourages in-body external links, except for citations. In this case, the links are highly POV and come from one confessional standpoint: Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity. 
Take the Gopher-wood link.
*The article is on a Fundamentalist, Creationist Protestant site. It is not a piece of reference, but of argument.
*The article puts forward an original idea on an obscure point—that "Gopher wood" was a pre-flood tree. This is the sort of point that ought to be argued in an article on Gopher-wood, so I made a link to one. If Agapetos Angel wants it, put it there.
*If we're going to link to things as reference (as opposed to citation), we should expect high-quality material. I was pretty amused, therefore, to note the article manages to comment on the Greek text without bothering to understand how the Greek alphabet works, giving the Greek word as kuparissov. Mistaking a nu for a v? I got over that after the first class.
If you'd like to revert, kindly post your explanation here. Anyway, it's getting better slowly, right?
Lectiodifficilior 18:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing POV external links in body of text 

message: I removed the link about the deluge, because this is about the life of Noah, not about the accuracy of the deluge or creationism.
Following this link would not really give more information about Noah, so it doesn't belong here.
:OK, I delete it again. Uncommented deletions by anonymous users are generally suspicious, so they are in danger of being reverted without checking.--Ikar.us 19:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  link removed 

message: I have found this book. It suggests that the writer of Noah knew the Greek story of the Flood via Berossus. Myrvin (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noah, the Greeks, and Berossus 

message: How is moving two images POV? And why were my edits reverted? Why are they opposed?
49.144.167.188 (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't play dumb. You know damn well that is not why your edits were reverted. If you're not going to bother giving a reason for your changes, we are done here.--Atlan (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Putting a Jewish artwork as the lead image recognizes the story's Jewish heritage, and makes the article far less Christian-centric.49.144.167.188 (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to make it less christian-centric, as there is no consensus that the article is too christian-centric. You have been reverted across multiple articles by multiple editors, but clearly you do not respect consensus or standard Wikipedia processes. I've already warned you to stop your rampant edit warring, or face a block.--Atlan (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless no one disagrees that this is too Christian centric either. And by the way, only two other editors have reverted my edits for no reason given.And just beacuase there is no consensus yet for whether the article is too Christian centric does not mean that it isn't.49.144.167.188 (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The status quo is considered to be the consensus version. You are the one trying to change the status quo and are being reverted. It is up to you to convince editors that your changes are an improvement.--Atlan (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

text: The real issue at hand, is that the IP believes our biblical articles should be Judeocentric. This is a matter for discussion and not stubborn edit warring. Moving the images is the least problematic of all the contested edits.--Atlan (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I understand. In the mean time, and in an attempt to harness evident enthusiasm, let him/her look for a good image. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: How is the article too Christian-centric? I'll note that - in my opinion, and it's just from observation - that Noah is a lot more important to Christians than to Judaism because Creationists make a big deal of Noah and the Flood. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The most important thing is that the article is accessible to any reader. Replacing the term "biblical Noah" with the vague "middle eastern legendary figure" in a (misguided) effort to make the article less "Christian-centric", is unhelpful. In other articles, the IP replaces the term "God" with YHWH and Elohim for the same reason. This is even less helpful IMO.--Atlan (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the onnly reason it seems that this article should be Christian centric because of the religion's large influence, and ever-exponential growth, to the point that a massive amount of ignorant people think that the Noah story is unique to Christianity.EvangelionAngel (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  And many people are unaware that the Yahweh-Elohim mentioned in the Hebrew Bible was polytheistic (this can be clearly detected in passages), since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, its job is to inform the readers, instead of presenting to them the Christian-tainted translations of Elohim and Yahweh into "God" and "the LORD".EvangelionAngel (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

text: @Atlan, are you saying that making this article appeal to Christians makes the article "accessible" to readers? That's rather bigoted towards non-Christians, and ignores the desires of interested irreligious readers to know more about the full picture about religion.49.144.167.188 (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No that is clearly not what I said.--Atlan (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Ip means that, by using just the Western "God" instead of Yahweh and Elohim, we are making this article accessible, but also conceal the nature and origins of the Hebrew texts. If we use Yahweh, and Elohim, we can reflect the originally polytheistic nature of the monotheistic Jewish God, and make this article more informative for irreligious people.Gonzales John (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am reasonably sure you are both the IP editor and EvangelionAngel, who appeared out of nowhere. This wouldn't be the first time you resorted to sockpuppetry to continue a steady stream of edit warring. I will report this at WP:SPI later today.--Atlan (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving images

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Noah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090711130618/http://muslimwiki.com/mw/index.php/Nuh to http://muslimwiki.com/mw/index.php/Nuh
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Due to accidentally pressing the wrong button and rolling back rather than undoing a recent edit by User:Kunroh, I didn't offer an explanation in the edit summary. Here's the explanation: creationist sources are not treated as reliable by Wikipedia. This is a basic norm here, in line with the policy page WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. Alephb (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: that's User:Konroh.Alephb (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation.com 

message: I noticed a new addition then tried to verify but unfortunately the "Levenson, 2004, 26" footnote lacks a corresponding source.  Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see your edit here but saw the problem, the footnote was copied from Curse of Ham without the bibliography. I've done a kludge as there are other missing ones, copied over the whole bibiography. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the new edit was  that inserted new text just before that already existing citation.  I still didn't see the Levenson one there but could also do some searches later on.  —PaleoNeonate – 14:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Ah yes the source is there at the other article. —PaleoNeonate – 14:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Text verified, thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 14:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levenson source 

message: The top image is low-resolution and not apparently notable enough to have an article or apparently much coverage online. Could someone good at the rules of this sort of stuff find a suitable replacement from :Commons:Category:Noah in art in higher quality? Thanks. DemonDays64 (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better image needed