Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive 2

message: Actually, I think muslims are involved in the search too.  I don't know arabic, though, so if there are books on the subject in arabic they probably wouldn't come up.  Also, there have got to be many more modern allusions? Schizombie 02:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather have a section called "Cultural references" (or similar), dealing with the influsence of the Ark story in Western culture (and any other). It would deal with art (tracing evolving depictions of the ark over the centuries - it started out being shown as a grave, of all things, and only later turned into a boat), in literature (Medieval mystery plays), music (Britten's "Noah's Fludde" or however he spelled it based on the old play), and the literary efforts of Julian Barnes and others of his calibre. Pop culture, i.e. space-opera and so on, and maybe the bit about children's toys, could go as bullet-points in a single short entry. But I don't have the resources to write all that. You're welcome to try your hand. PiCo 23:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search, and modern allusions 

message: I removed this small section. It contained very little - a comment to the effect that there are toy arks for children, a reference to a novel, and to the use of an ark theme in science fiction. I think that we should leave this out until we have more "meat" to put in it. PiCo 01:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Allusions section 

message: Suggest is it time to archive this talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: Baidawi gives the dimensions of the Ark as 300 cubits by 50 by 30, and explains that in the first of the three levels wild and domesticated animals were lodged, in the second the human beings, and in the third the birds. On every plank was the name of a prophet. Three missing planks, symbolising three prophets, were brought from Egypt by Og, son of Anak, the only one of the giants permitted to survive the Flood. The body of Adam was carried in the middle to divide the men from the women.
::At footnote 22 you will find links to two articles from the online Jewish Encyclopedia, "Noah" and "Ark of Noah". These were the sources for the information as it appears in the Wikipedia article. JE's own sources for Baidawi and others are given only in the Noah article. The Baidawi appears to be his Commentary on the Koran. (Please sign your comments with four tildes, the tilde being this squiggly symbol ~ ). PiCo 06:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone give a reference for the Baidawi . I have never heard of Prophet Adam, peace be upon him, being carried in the Ark. 

message: The article says "misapplied etymology" under "Gopher wood" in the section "Biblical literalism and the Ark".  Who says it's misapplied?  I assume that the bible translators who call it cypress would disagree that it's "misapplied".  —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 01:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article says, the word "gofer" is not known in any other Hebrew text. Possibly the text is corrupt and some other word was meant, or possibly the word is simply not Hebrew. Whatever the reason, the lak of any other instances makes comparison and translation impossible - hence the decision of the King James editors to leave it untranslated. If the word is not Hebrew, then Assyrian "giparu", meaning reeds, seems plausible, given the fact that the Mesopotamian flood-hero made his boat from his reed house (these southern Iraqi reed-houses were still being built until fairly recently, and photos can be found in, for example, the travel books of Wilfred Thesiger and Gavin Maxwell, together with photos of boats made from the same reeds). Nevertheless, this is merely speculation. "Kofer", pitch, is also a plausible candidate if we accept that the word is a corrupted error for something in Hebrew. A derivation from Hebrew "gushere", cypress, seems less likely - "kofer" could give rise to "gofer", but it's difficult to see a mistake that could lead from "gushere" to "gofer". Pine and cedar are even less likely. The bible translators who call it cypress are presumably motivated by a modern tradition, but it would be better to leave it untranslated. PiCo 09:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV concern 

message: In the second paragraph under "The search for Noah's Ark", it says "local authorities have renamed a nearby mountain "Mount Cudi," making it one of at least five Mount Judis in the Middle East". Is it Mount Cudi or Mount Judi? Jwillbur 00:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's both - Cudi is the Turkish spelling of Judi, but same pronunciation. PiCo 00:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cudi or Judi? 

message: This sentence was added today: "To this day no evidence has emerged to support the claim that Noah's Ark has been located on top of Mount Ararat[33]. The shape identified in satellite photos turned out to be merely an oddly-shaped rock face (like the Face on Mars) [34]." I have a few problems with it. First, the subject is already covered in the two final paragraphs of the section, and at a greater level of detail. Scond, the references given at [33] are given in greater detail in other sources in the References section. Third, the reference given in [34] doesn't support the claim made in the sentence (i.e., that the shape shown in satellite photos has been proven to be a rock-face). Can you improve it please? PiCo 01:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind - I've exchanged the new para for a single sentence that I think gets across the point you want to make, namely that the "artifact" has been declared a natural formation by the scientific community. Ok? PiCo 01:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd've left Cyde's edit as it was. •Jim62sch• 01:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This ain't rocket science -- none of the claims were legit.  Did people claim to see something?  Yes.  Just like UFO's, Sasquatch, Nessie, the Grays, Big Foot,  the Yeti, unicorns, dragons and pink elephants. •Jim62sch• 20:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, if you're going to say their not legit, they most well known should be in the article, and why they aren't.   Life I said before, the best way to do this, is say they have yet to be substantiated or no evidence has been presented to substantiate these claims or something like that. Not, these claims are false. Thats not neutral policy.  I imagine the administrators on Wikipedia would agree with me on this. If I'm proven wrong, I'll admit it. I'm no religious fanatic, I just want to see neutral wording. 12.220.94.199 21:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Search of the Ark 

message: The article comes across as proposing thing in either/or terms.  There are those who believe in the JEPD explanation, and there are biblical literalists.  Speaking for myself, I have doubts about JEPD, at least as it applies to this story, but I don't take the story literally, and I certainly don't think Moses wrote it, and I think that the Pentateuch clearly has more than one source.  I think a lot of people are neither enamored of source criticism, nor are they literalists.  Could this article possibly be a bit more nuanced? Carlo 02:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Either/or 

message: This article is reccomended for deletion as there is no factual evidence proving its truth or that it ever happened.--KazMat32 03:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And since when is that a reason to delete an article? We have articles on Star Wars and that probably didn't happen. JoshuaZ 01:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well then, that is all the more reason why we should have it as an FA. Maybe it will help people understand why others believe what they do. In any event, I'm not sure how a story's original motivation matters for whether or not it is important )and I think quite a few might argue that the original point of many biblical stories was for entertainment anyways). By the way, you can sign your comments by putting  ~~~~  at the end and your username will appear at the end. JoshuaZ 03:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The article is about the story of Noah's Ark.  It is unquestioned fact that such a story exists and is important.  The question of if the story is literally true or not is totally irrelevant to the need for an article on the subject.  Compare luminiferous ether or Saint Valentine.  The first doesn't exist and the second may not have.  Nevertheless, they are still important enough to merit articles in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Vonspringer 02:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether a topic is stupid or controversial shouldn't effect whether the article about it is good enough to deserve FA. A far more potentially offensive topic was featured a few weeks ago, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In fact, I would argue that controversial topics are in fact the best examples for featured articles. If Wikipedia can make good articles about controversial topics, then it should be able to make good articles about almost anything.JoshuaZ 02:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There is plenty of evidence supporting the Noah's Ark story. It's just that there are different interpretations of the evidence. And please do not abuse the word "true". Saying that all religions are true leads to logical impossibilities. It is fairer to say that all religions contain some truth. rossnixon 11:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there is no evidence whatsoever supporting the Ark story.  Unless you're hiding something from the rest of us.  --Cyde Weys 16:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As one of the primary editors of this article, I (an agnostic) felt that the factuality of the story did not truly matter.  What mattered was not that I personally think that there was no flood, no ark, no Noah, but that we presented an NPOV article on the subject.  Period.  As for eveyone's religios beliefs, I really don't give a damn.  If you're happy with your beliefs I'm happy for you, but don't try to foist them on others, or assume that everyone who disagrees with your spercific religion is an atheist.  •Jim62sch• 21:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: The picture of the painting at the top of this article looks really good. I do not know much about Featured Pictures, but could this be a candidate for it? -EdGl 03:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noah's Ark Painting -- Featured Picture? 

message: Can someone check the source in the "In Islamic tradition" section of this article? Coming from a muslim, the section does not sound factual at all.  I especially feel a lot of bias from the source, which is the Jewish Encyclopedia and contains such quotes as "Mohammed's conception of the Ark of Noah" rather than "Islam's conception" and random comments such as a mentioning of "Og, son of Anak, the only one of the giants who was permitted to survive the Flood", which is wrong from what I have read since I have never seen any mention of giants in the Quran. -Zer0fighta 04:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel the section can be improved, feel free. Just be sure to quote your sources. PiCo 04:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats the problem. I know the source is wrong/biased but I dont really have the time right now to find a source and fix it. I suggest just removing biased/doubtful information for now. Any objections anyone? -Zer0fighta 08:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd leave it for now, since it is at least a source. Personally I have no way of judging whether it's biased - but more to the point, it's getting on for a hundred years old, and I think scholarship has moved on. But by all means come back when you have the time and references and re-edit it. PiCo 08:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the article from Jewish Encyclopedia.  The "—In Mohammedan Literature:" uses Baidawi as a source.  I have found Baidawi's name used predominantly on an "answering islam" web site sourced to substatiate clearly biased claims.  I can only come to the opinion that Baidawi is an obscure source.  As stated below, stories in the Quran and Sunnah are focus on worhship, forgiveness, patience, and other  universal concepts.  The stories tend not to contain extraneous information (names, dates, and locations).  Good examples of this is Surat Nuh (71).  Also, the article on the Jewish Encylopedia site is rated 2.68.  I'm not sure how that fits into all of this, but it is certainly worth a mention.  --gh☼st 20:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You're welcome to revise it any way you like. Just keep it no longer than the current length (this is just a matter of balance - don't want one section becoming markedly longer than the rest, and don't want the average to keep creeeping upwards), and cite your sources. PiCo 06:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Islamic Tradition"? 

message: I think the box that has been added to the bottom of the article needs some discussion. (I will paste it here.)
NOTE: Categorising a story as a myth does not necessarily imply that it is untrue. Religion and mythology differ, but have overlapping aspects. Many English speakers understand the terms "myth" and "mythology" to mean fictitious or imaginary. However, according to many dictionary definitions, these terms can also mean a traditional story or narrative that embodies the belief or beliefs of a group of people, and this Wikipedia category should be understood in this sense only.  The use of these terms in this category does not imply that any story so categorized is historically true or false or that any belief so embodied is itself either true or false.
Sure, it sounds neutral enough, but is this permissible and necessary as a self-reference? Wikipedia doesn't, as a practice, preemptively guard against offending readers this way, at least not in the main namespace. Please see Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.
Also, as the box itself says, the statement it gives is pretty much implied in the definition of the word myth; if certain readers choose to ignore that fact and get ticked off over an NPOV treatment of the Bible, do we really need a special, self-referential message to placate them? (If so, we'd need them in a whole lot of other places too.) Thanks for your input. –Sommers (Talk) 12:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, someone has removed the box. If any disagreement arises, your opinions are welcome. Thanks. –Sommers (Talk) 18:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really wish that people would take the time to read the archives.  Were they to do so, they might find out that the box was not preemptive, but the result of a long dispute.  Before going ape and editing an article, it might be best to check into the background. •Jim62sch• 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the archives were more about whether or not to categorize Noah's Ark as a myth that the actual text of the disclaimer;  the points raised by Sommers were not addressed (or I missed them and their resolution).  mdf 23:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This box should be hidden in comment tags in the source, not displayed prominently on the article itself. If people remove the category ignoring the established consensus, they can simply be reverted. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mdf is right, and I haven't heard or found any reason why the box is compatible with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Avoid self-references and Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates, so I'm going to be bold (or "go ape", if you insist) and follow Christopher Parham's suggestion, changing the box to a comment. This way it ought to still serve its intended purpose of communicating its points to anyone inclined to change the categorization. Thanks for your input, everyone. –Sommers (Talk) 16:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What about the possibility of the word legend? I'm not saying I'm right in this case, but am offering a suggestion. In my usage, I try to have one meaning each for three words: myth, an untrue story represented as true; legend, a story that may or may not be true and may or may not be represented as true; and fable, an untrue story that may or may not be true but is represented more for the "moral" that it teaches than for its possible factual correctness. (All three involve stories that are often, but not always, old.) I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but thought I'd mention what may be an option. President Lethe 17:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: See the archives, Abrahamic myth is appropriate.  We've been through this already.  Look up the definition of myth. •Jim62sch• 01:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth box 

message: This article is taking an allegory too far. Most Rabbis acknowledge the Gilgamesh as the original source material and value the science that says a global flood is pure bunk. Has the fact that a global flood would kill all life in the oceans been explored? This article lacks the WikiPedia NPOV and emphasis on science. I am sad that this is singled out as the article of the day. People need to understand that for centuries Noah's Ark has been used as an obvious attack on science. Today it is religious fundamentalists' favorite method of attack upon evolution. And that many then neolithic cultures remembered the last Ice Age melts which caused gigantic local floods can not be taken as proof that the myth of the ark is true. - Sparky 18:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a story.  •Jim62sch• 21:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Modern Jewish Take 

message: This is a really great article! I'd never seen so much ballanced information about Noah's Ark in one place! I think the people who say Wikipedia is unreliable are really closed-minded. Sarah crane 19:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great article 

message: The article says in the second paragraph: 
::Many Orthodox Jews and traditional Christians and Muslims reject this analysis, holding that the Ark story is true, that it has a single author (Moses), and that any perceived inadequacies can be rationally explained.
According to the Orthodox Jewish view, the auther of the Bible is not Moses, but God.  This has to be changed somehow.--aishel 13:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a way of removing the 'Moses' reference on the main page? I removed it from the article.--aishel 17:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The Orthodox Jewish view is but one view, and it seems that your take is different from that of some orthodox Jews I grew up with.  For many people, the Pentateuch is considered/assumed/alleged to have been written (trabscribed?) by Moses (that's why in the Germanic and Scandanavian countries, the books of the Pentateuch are rendered as "First Book of Moses, Second Book of Moses, etc. -- in their own specific language of course). Personally, I think it was written by several people, although that does not matter to the article or to anything else. •Jim62sch• 22:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe that it was dictated by God to Moses, however, the way it is written now only shows that Moses was the one to write it.  By leaving it as a 'single author' that lets the reader decide who that author was.--aishel 22:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll tell you what, we'll leave Moses out (personally, I don't care either way), but if there's a backlash, it's going to go back in.  Remember, you need to reach consensus (especially on potentially contentious changes) before making the edit.  •Jim62sch• 22:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: An article on Noah's Ark isn't the place for people to be deciding whether or not Moses wrote this or that, or whether God told Moses to write it, or if, in fact, the Easter Bunny was behind it all.  Simply state the facts, which are as Jim62sch says:  Moses is traditionally given credit for these works.  Further questions can be referred to documentary hypothesis or similar.  mdf 23:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodox Jewish View 

message: Quote: 
The Ark that Noah built was at the time the fastest ship known to man. He was the first man to ever break the sound barrier, and his ship was perfect for catching the pirates that plagued the Mediterranean at the time. Noah was also famous for catching the white whale in Jules Verne's classic, Moby Dick.
Someone want to remove that?
::::LOve it! Some of our vandals are really funny! Nevertheless they must all be caught and hung from the yardarm. PiCo 23:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something strange in the neighbourhood 

message: All these poeple saying Noah's ark isn't real are just being stupid. Of course it happened. The Bible says so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rookwood (talk • contribs) 
:While some people take the Bible literally, the Bible is possibly only a collection of metaphorical stories, not to be taken literally. Take, for example, the story of Adam and Eve. This story could not have happened in the literal sense, as material evidence supports evolution and not the sudden creation of man from dust. The story is meant to represent many things, such as the stages of growing, the tendency of Man to lie or cheat, &c. Likewise, the story of Noah's Ark could or could not have happened. It could have a basis in fact, but, again, the lack of evidence proves otherwise. The silt deposited by a worldwide flood has not been found. The flood, if it ever occurred, would probably have been limited only to the Middle East. Mahk Twen 21:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it matter for the purposes of this article? •Jim62sch• 22:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Rookwood, your faith m ay require you to believe the literal truth of the Bible in its every word.  Mine does not.  There are sufficient different translations and interpretations that to take any word of the Bible as literal received truth is the route to madness as you try to reconcile the irreconcilable.  It is quite possible that there wa s agreat flood, and that a man took his animals on a boat and survived, but the idea of the entire Earth being purged is neither plausible nor an essential plank of Christianity - many other stories are interpreted as allegorical, after all.  Did it really happen?  Maybe.  Did it happen in the literal sense of the whole of life on Earth being wiped out with that one family saved?  Well, you can believe that if you like, but don't expect many others, Christian or not, to agree. Just zis Guy you know? 22:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of course it happened. 

message: The last sentence of the Chinese flood legend says...
"This story, along with the many other flood stories from cultures around the world, proves that the flood with Noah's ark really did take place."
Apparently the author is trying to make the point that the multiplicity and synergy of similar stories makes it more likely that the story is true.  This needs to be better integrated into the article.  Khatores 00:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole paragraph is not substantiated by erputable scholarship and will be removed. Eventually. PiCo 00:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple stories alone prove nothing... 

message: I'm certainly not one to pick a fight, but PiCo, I find it interesting that you find it so out of place to mention that Ararat was once located in Armenia proper. You may not realize that the notion of the Armenia is already mentioned twice in the article as it stands; unfortunately, given that there is nothing to set the stage for these mentions, the unfamiliar reader will likely not understand why they even exist. I am not going to make an addition to the article in this vein because apparently such an addition is not doing me credit, but I still firmly believe that in other contexts when the subject is what has become the national symbol of a nation, that fact is at the very least worthy of a mention. --DanielNuyu 05:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough - I simply take it for granted that everyone shares my knowledge of historical geography. (If you'd like a brief description of the changing borders of Angevin France and the resulting regional variations in the pronunciation of the phoneme /ch/, I'm your man). But put it in the main body of the article, not in the summary section, ok? PiCo 07:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh what the hell, put it in the intro. PiCo 07:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --DanielNuyu 08:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Nationalism sure never caused a war or fifty. ;) •Jim62sch• 11:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On mentioning that Ararat was once in Armenia 

message: While it is certainly true that the Book of Genesis in the Christian Bible corresponds exactly to the book named "Bereshit" in the Hebrew Bible, I think it is incorrect to say that the story of the Ark is "contained in the Hebrew Bible's book of Genesis, chapters 6 to 9."  If you are going to reference the Hebrew Bible, call it "Bereshit," but because that name is lesser-known, I think it is better to say it is "contained in the Christian Bible's book of Genesis," or better still, "contained in the Bible's book of Genesis," since it is in both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible.  I'd change it myself, but I'd rather not have to fight down the objections, so I'm explaining it instead.  --Cromwellt|Talk 15:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point. I'll change it to "the biblical book of Genesis". PiCo 22:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone's already done it. PiCo 22:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genesis and the Hebrew Bible 

message: There is no discrepancy in the Bible as to the length of the flood.  Genesis 7:17 tells how long the water kept rising (40 days).  Genesis 7:24 tells how long the water stayed at its peak level, no longer rising, before it receded (150 days).
Nicholasjc2000 16:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And where does the article say there was? •Jim62sch• 23:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the point where these two verses are referenced, the article is explaining the thinking behind the documentary hypothesis - 19th century scholars say a confusion between these two verses (and others), and based the hypothesis on their attempts to explain this. Please be clear that the article isn't saying the confusion is there - it's just saying that the scholars believed it was. Other explanatoins are of course possible, such as the one you give here. But the article isn't trying to reconcile these two verses, or even saying that the confusion is real: it's just explaining the thinking behind the documentary hypothesis. (I changed your edit back to something like the original because what you put here made nonsense of the point the paragraph is making). PiCo 00:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point, I didn't understand it either. •Jim62sch• 01:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of Flood 

message: "The 87 verses of the Ark narrative leave an impression of occasional confusion"
I changed this to "Some of the 87 verses of the Ark narrative contradict each other". This was reverted apparently to maintain a neutral point of view. While they most definately do leave an impression of occasional confusion, it is far more accurate to say that they contradict each other.
* One pair of animals directly contradicts seven pairs.
* Forty days directly contradicts 150 days.
These are by definition contradictions, they cannot both be true. The current phrase, "leave an impression of occasional confusion", is far less neutral. It infers that these are not serious contradictions. They don't just leave an impression of occasional confusion, they are occasional confusion, or more preceisly, occasional contradiction. Kernow 22:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, many apologists will tell you otherwise about these sorts of issues. For example, they will claim that it rained for 40 days and the water stuck around for 150, which is in fact textually consistent. It might therefore be best to say something like "Modern Biblical scholars see the text as full of contradictions" (that's a bit wordy, can someone else give a better wording?) or something like that. However, to say there are contradictoins straight out would seem to violate NPOV. JoshuaZ 22:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JoshuaZ has it pretty much right. But when writing this I had in mind 19th century scholars rather than modern ones - I was trying to explain why those early scholars felt that something needed explaining. To say that early scholars saw contradictions is perfectly NPOV, especially if citations can me given. Maybe someone else could word something. PiCo 22:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: If no one objects, this talk page is about due for another archiving. JoshuaZ 01:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object. Its not due; its over-due. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: How the hell this is a featured article is beyond me. The referencing is inconsistent, there are several one-sentence paragraphs - which certainly don't help the flow of the article, and the prose is certainly not outstanding in parts. To me, it looks like it has been over-rated due to its length and wealth of sources - which don't actually count for a thing. I would say it is B-class at best, and needs work to become GA-class. FA-class? I'm baffled. Unless this is significantly different to when it was featured, but even so, the ratings of this page need to change - there is no way that this is "one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community". Rusty8 (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was classified as a featured article a long time ago.  Since then it has been hacked about by various editors with conflicting agendas, and it is taking a small handful of us a long time to repair the article due to the repeated interference of these editors.  It should not be classified as a featured article at present.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some general comments 

message: I have moved this statement here.  It was recently added but not sourced.  If a reliable source is found it could certainly fit, but let's not lower the quality of this article further with unsourced conjecture: 
"Some detailed studies have proved that even when using the common 18 inch cubit, all the animals could not have taken much more that half the available space in the ark, providing all the fish and other sea creatures remained in the flood. (The pre-flood seas are very likely to have been mostly freshwater)"
Cheers, T Berg Drop a Line ޗ  pls</sub></span> 02:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space in the Ark?