Talk:Noah's Ark

Wiki Education assignment: HUM 202 - Introduction to Mythology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: DogWithTheFogFrog.

— Assignment last updated by Rockethound (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Fictional?

Brennan1111, AdrianWikiEditor, Dezoekster Please explain why you are removing the description that this is a fictional ship. What source do you have for it factually existing and how does this match with the article? Also were you WP:CANVASSed or is there any element of WP:MEATPUPPET? —DIYeditor (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the need to use the word fictional when we can use the more natural, accurate, and neutral mythical. There is a difference between Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and the Bible. There has been consensus for the use of this terminology before (there are a lot more examples in the archives). Also do a Control+F and see which of these terms come up. Havradim leaf a message 07:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Mythical works for me. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Another +1 for "mythical". In this and similar articles, we are carefully using the words "myth" and "mythical". Let's apply that consistency here. Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Mythical narratives tend to reflect the religious beliefs, the rituals, and the social norms of the cultures which created them. Fictional works tend to only reflect the cultural values of their writers and/or of their intended audience. You can learn a lot about a writer when you notice the ideological background of specific works in their output, but their ideas may not have been in step with the wider society of their era. Dimadick (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The change has now been made—the consensus process at work. Thank you all for your input. Havradim leaf a message 05:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that fictional is not really the best language to address the beliefs of hundreds of millions or billions of people around the world. Mythical is a much better word. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The book of Genesis 2604:2D80:6109:F000:D897:3CB8:AAD4:2098 (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

...is not a reliable source. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Good one. Lol. Thinker78 (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the difference between fictional and mythical. Nothing in the above discussion explains it. Yes, some editors seem to feel they have achieved some sort of a victory here, but I don't see it. This really doesn't strike me as encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Winnie the Pooh is fictional. Noah is mythical. They are similar words but have some nuance. What's the problem? —DIYeditor (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess I'm not seeing the nuance. This being a "factual" encyclopaedia, is it explained anywhere? HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I will give you my perspective, but I think it probably useful to put some cards on the table: I don't believe there is any 'reality' to the Flood Narrative (or any of them). That said, at least for me, the nuance between the terms lies in self-conscious knowledge and intent. That is, fiction is a knowing untruth (though not necessarily a lie). 'Myth' exists in a rather grayer world--as I see it, many people who pass on 'myths' don't even really consider the associated truth value at all. So, I guess I would slightly prefer "myth," but should consensus determine that "fiction" is preferable, I will not be particularly disturbed. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

There are many articles in Wikipedia about myths. I don't see how that is unencyclopedic. In fact, any serious encyclopedia would include ancient myths.

Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myths. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Is a myth not fictional? HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

What do reliable sources call it? And I'd say no in any case. Myths are a psychological truth within the culture where it originates. No specific author, they grow. Fiction has a specific author. But again, RS count. Doug Weller talk 07:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Are we legit having a conversation on the back of some troll comment?? Please, revert IP nonsense like that instead of engaging with it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about changing fiction to myth? That's not trolling. All myths are fiction (more or less) but not all fictions are myths. RS normally describe Noah's Ark as part of one of the flood myths. I'm not sure I've ever seen it described as "fiction". Although it obviously is.DeCausa (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm referring to 2604:d280's comment, which prompted a rather inappropriate response by HiLo and Thinker. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Where is the inappropriateness? I am simply trying hard to understand the "nuances" people claim exist in these cagtegorisations. Lots of people (including you!) are declaring that myth is better than fiction here, but very few are attempting to explain that difference. And I'm certainly not trolling!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it's overall been a useful discussion, and has resulted in an improvement. Myth is obviously a better word to use here than Fiction, as those two articles make clear. Neither implies any kind of factuality. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that myth is a better word than fiction. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

CaptainEek can you clarify if your comment about "inappropriate response" is in your administrator capacity or just a random personal opinion. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 06:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thinker78 I am not taking any admin action here. But that doesn't prevent me from calling out inappropriate comments like "Good one. Lol." CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct that all myths are fiction. In fact, some myths can turn out to be real and many myths are based on true situations that due to passage of time and other factors evolved into something else. For example, the Olympic gods may have been kings that later on were deified. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The Olympic gods may have been human kings once, at some level, but all the gumpf about their supernatural powers is clearly FICTION. The city of Troy probably did exist in real life, but the supernatural portions of the story, including the gods and monsters, is clearly FICTION. Father Noah may have once existed as a real-life Sumerian patriarch, but the stories of a huge flood and a huge boat and pairs of animals etc, is clearly FICTION. Hence the need for distinction. We need to be very clear in our choice of wording, to report that a global flood DID NOT HAPPEN. River floods were common in Sumer, though much less so in Canaan, but they flooded river valleys, not entire deserts and mountain ranges. And Noah did not have pairs of kangaroos etc on board. Wdford (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I just feel the need to name-drop my old buddy Euhemerus. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you proposing going to all articles about ancient mythology and change the wording from mythology to fiction? There is a reason why scholars use the word mythology and myths instead of tales and fiction. Let's instead mirror reliable sources wording. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: you might be interested in this discussion. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I am not sure if I have much to contribute, but I may do my best. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

What percent fiction does a story have to include for the story to be considered fictional on the whole? There was in fact a real stuffed bear named Winnie-the-Pooh and a real boy named Christopher Robin behind the Winnie the Pooh story. It's still fiction. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem with euhemerism is in identifying the actual extent to which the myth is historical information, and the extent to which it has been distorted by adding layers of blatant fiction. In the case of the flood of Noah, scientific evidence shows that there was no such thing at all, and there cannot ever have been such a nonsense. If a Sumerian farmer once used a reed raft to save his family and some livestock from a local river in flood, can that really be used to claim a "historical basis" for the grandiose global flood story of Genesis? How much historical fact is needed for a myth to still be a myth, and how much fiction can be included before the myth becomes a fiction story - or even a blatant lie?

@Thinker78 - you stated above that "There is a reason why scholars use the word mythology and myths instead of tales and fiction." Please elaborate? Wdford (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The difference between "myth" and "fiction" has got nothing to do with the truthfulness of it. It's about the purpose of the story. Take a look at some of the citations in our Myth article. DeCausa (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Even using that confusing mess of contradiction as a benchmark, the flood story of Noah is more fiction than myth. Even in the development of a religion or culture, it serves no purpose other than to suggest that a certain deity slaughtered large numbers of innocents for no valid reason. What "mythical" purpose does this serve? To terrify a simple people into obedience for fear of their "protective" deity? It explains nothing, and it defines nothing, other than a need for slavish obedience to a cruel and capricious invisible master - and to "his" priests and prophets. I can understand the Creation Myth/s. I understand the need for ancient peoples to explain thunder and rain and famine and infertility etc. I understand why the ancient Israelites would develop grand myths around Abraham and Moses and the Passover and King Solomon. I understand why the ancient Christians would develop a deity out of a political activist. But why on earth a global flood, and a pair of kangeroos? Wdford (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why this thread has so much WP:OR about whether we think it's fiction or myth. It's irrelevant. What do the RS say. AFAIK, it's habitually referred to as one of the flood myths. What are the sources that describe it not as myth but as fiction? DeCausa (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I doubt you will ever find a source which describes the flood as "not myth but fiction", because to most intelligent people, "MYTH IS FICTION". That's the entire point. The rest of this distinction is an attempt by certain editors to differentiate between "fiction which hardly anybody believes to be true" vs "fiction which some people believe to be true". The question being asked here is still the same - how many people have to believe a portion of a fiction to be true, before it translates from "fiction" into "myth"? Wdford (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

"Most intelligent people"??? There's popular mis-usage of the word myth. But that's an entirely different thing. I'm repeating myself, but "myth" has very specific meaning, which has nothing to do with what you say. But I'll think I'll drop out at this point and let you guys continue your discussions. DeCausa (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

From the dictionary:

"Myth - 1. a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. 2. a widely held but false belief or idea."

Seems I am spot-on. Nowhere does it say that myths are NOT fiction. Does anybody have a dictionary definition of a myth which states it is NOT fiction? Wdford (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Er, where did I say myths are not fiction? As I posted earlier, all myths are fiction (more or less) but not all fictions are myths. I'm definitely dropping out of this rather pointless thread now! DeCausa (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It is common hearing about mythology. It is not common hearing about fictional ancient tales. My educated guess is that myths and mythology are the go-to accepted terms by scholars. Fictional ancient tales denotes more observer bias not objectivity, and it doesn't sound that respectful to other cultures. That's one reason I think mythology is the term experts use, at least in publications and conferences. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I suspect I could find a Wikipedia guideline to tell us that it's not Wikipedia's job to be respectful to other cultures, whatever "other" might mean there. I'm not from Wikipedia's predominant white, Christian, American culture, for example. My "other" might differ from your "other". HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I am just giving my take about why scholars use the terms mythology and myths instead of fictional tales. Otherwise, you are right about "respectful". Per WP:NOTCENSORED, "being objectionable is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content." (No idea why mentioning race though.) Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

People can throw words around casually and imprecisely, but when writing encyclopedia articles, we should strive for accuracy and recognize the clear distinctions between related concepts. Fiction is written by authors or authors who are well aware that they are creating a work that does not purport to be the truth. The readers of or viewers of or listeners to fictional works, are for the most part well aware the the work is fictional, but they like fiction because it is entertaining, and for great works of literary fiction, it is also inspiring and illuminating. Myth, on the other hand, is usually of uncertain origin and authorship, and in many cases, seems to have developed in layers over long periods of time, and was and is spread by people who sincerely believe the myth to be true. Almost no sane person believes that the works of William Shakespeare or Mary Shelley or Charles Dickens or Ernest Hemingway or Agatha Christie or Robert A. Heinlein are factual accounts, but many millions or possibly billions of people believe that the myths of their culture are true, including the Noah's Ark myth. Calling the story "fictional" implies that one or a few people thousands of years ago deliberately created a false story. There is, of course, zero evidence that this is the case, and it is far more likely that the people who set the ancient myth to writing believed that it is the truth, as they understood truth. Cullen328 (talk) 04:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you pinpoint the issue very precisely. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Over the years, the topic of "myth" arises quite often on articles relating to the first few chapters of Genesis. And the discussion bounces around, rather like this one. So might it be useful to have some sort of Wikipedia essay about it? Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328, I second Feline Hymnic. It would be good if you make an essay simply by copy pasting what you wrote. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree very well said more then essay worthy as is.Wikipedia:Myth versus fiction WP:MVF Moxy- 03:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I support having an essay, provided it is accurate and properly sourced. The wording offered above is not adequate as it stands.

"Calling the story "fictional" implies that one or a few people thousands of years ago deliberately created a false story. There is, of course, zero evidence that this is the case". This is obviously correct. However, there is also zero evidence that this is NOT the case, for indeed a group of people may well have deliberately created a false story for their own ulterior purposes. For religious myths, one would immediately suspect the priests and others who benefitted hugely from the myth in question. Follow the money.

"It is far more likely that the people who set the ancient myth to writing believed that it is the truth, as they understood truth." This certainly is possible, but it is debatable whether it is "far more likely". A good lie, if heavily supported by the authorities of the day, will gain traction among a gullible and subjugated populace. The difference between a so-called "myth" and a "conspiracy theory" is relatively fine, and in times before most people could read far less access the internet, such things would have been effective instruments of the ruling classes. Consider the much more recent cases underpinning European colonialism, anti-Semitism, communism etc.

Let's open a draft essay, and discuss the choice of wording. Wdford (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

See first draft here at [1] Wdford (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion proved to be very productive! Nice. Thinker78 (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I just found relevant guidance. MOS:MYTH states,

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)