Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-28 Noah's Ark

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Noah's Ark
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Til Eulenspiegel, NathanLee,
Mediator(s)	Xavexgoem (talk)
Comment	Entrenched.

Where is the dispute taking place?

• Talk:Noah's Ark

Who else is involved in the disagreement?

• Numerous editors on both sides of dispute dating back at least three years

Briefly, what's the problem?

Every so often, editors will surface who try to include weasel words and ambiguous language to the effect that various events described in the Bible or Quran are "myth" and "mythology". Noah's Ark is just the tip of the iceberg; such editors have also attempted to have wikipedia declare that Resurrection of Jesus is "mythology" for the same biased reasoning. Other major Encyclopedias tend to avoid going so far as to endorse this extreme view, usually reserving "mythology" for religions that are no longer followed by significant numbers today, and keeping living "religion" as a separate category from those that are no longer living. The term "mythology" was applied to sacred books of living religions in order to attack and ridicule them, as is amply demonstrated by quotes from anti-religious bigots like Voltaire, the leaders of the Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution, and Marxist-Leninists, who all attempted to declare that henceforth the Bible would only be recognised as "mythology". It is an ambiguous term (a term with multiple meanings) that has a historical use as a weasel word; and many other editors feel it is pushing a pov in violation of policy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

...What's keeping it from being solved?

Some of these editors proudly wear their anti-religious biases on their homepages like a badge, yet they pretend that since ONE of the definitions of "mythology" does not include the word "falsehood", that it therefore is a "neutral" term all the way. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

...What do you want fixed?

From the beginning, policy has been that if a word is ambiguous or contentious, it must be replaced with a more neutral synonym as a compromise acceptable to all significant viewpoints. So, if they claim they are using "mythology" in a somehow "innocent" or "benign" way and that it means "religious narrative", then let's not use the offensive word, lets say "religious narrative" instead if that's really what we really mean.

I would also like to see some sort of explicit decision that it is against policy to declare that the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Bhagavad Gita, the Lotus Sutra, or any other narrative held sacred by a significant viewpoint, is "mythology". There has been no end to partisans of different groups each trying to get the other guy's beliefs or scriptures declared "mythology" or even "false" in clear violation of neutrality. Wikipedia should not establish original precedent by lumping living religion in as "mythology", but should follow the precedent of mainstream encyclopedias, and use words like "mythology" to categorize only those religions of the past that are no longer significantly followed today. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by an involved editor

I think the wording and language of this page really sums up the bias Til Eulenspiegel has in this matter. The "definition" used by this user appears based on a single quote (not definition) gleaned from an answers.com page and contradicts every dictionary definition that has been mentioned in the debate. This user ignores the very clear wikipedia policy on how "myth" is to be used and treated WTA:Myth and legend. In discussing this matter the user has failed to provide any supporting links/references to support this definition (which even if they did exist, would contradict how wikipedia policy has said the term should be used). The other part of the argument is that this user is offended by the term, when (see talk page) the previous pope does not even share (although this was claimed as a reason but an article I found when no link was provided showed this to be completely false) this view and (according to the article and references) biblical scholars and scientists abandoned a literal treatment of the story in the 19th century. Add to this wikipedia does not censor and "not causing offence to all" is an impossible goal and all religions are to be treated equally whether or not they have followers. This user has asked that exceptions be made to how "live" religions are treated. I also get the sense that this user wants to make biblical stories appear as factual historic account (e.g. the example above "resurrection of jesus" is also part of Christian mythology just as the resurrection of Osiris is part of Egyptian mythology)

In short: it's a niche view/definition, contrary to wikipedia policy, inconsistent with other pages, inconsistent with academic usage and reliant on fallacious "appeals to population" or pure personal opinion.

The fact is that this article is a page on a piece of Deluge (mythology), Christian mythology, Jewish mythology or Islamic mythology and as such would not hurt to be called mythology (like other similar religious story pages) to make it clear that this is not "factual historic account".

What needs to be fixed is that this user reminded of various policies, to align their definition of "mythology" with dictionary and wikipedia's ones (rather than a personally made up one) and to not keep reverting a sensible, clarifying change to the lead because religious beliefs are clouding their views. NathanLee (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this comment by TE explains (and confirms my statements above) why this has been a contentious issue (and an unproductive edit war): User didn't bother reading the WP policy on how the term is to be used (including my link in the paragraphs above). Pretty ridiculous that this has been ignored when the policy has been linked in discussion so many times as part of other editors attempts to explain how the term is to be used according to policy. NathanLee (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments by an uninvolved editor

As one of the old members of the Mediation Cabal, I have added by comments to Noah's Ark, and repeat them (summarized) here. I strongly suggest:

• Use words like "text" or "prose" to characterize the ancient stories about Noah.
• Avoid use of the word "myth" as suggested by Wikipedia editorial (style) standard.
• Avoid use of the word "scripture" since it gives credence to the occurence of an event based on faith.
• Consensus is the major policy guiding my recommendation here. This recommendation meets NPOV policy, WP use of myth, especially in the context of an introduction, and consensus.

Regards, SteveMc (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by another uninvolved editor

I suggest insertion of a link to the original story in Sumerian. it has both translation and composite text to the story of the Flood

In that form its pretty clear that it is ancient literature and the word literature might easily be substituted for myth if myth is offensive.

The sumerian phrase nu-a lu can be read as without fault (determinative man). The idea that nu-a is a man without fault in the eyes of the lord selecting him for salvation is consistant with the story of Noah's Ark.

I second the avoidence of the word scripture

I would also like to see some mention of the fact that c 16,000 - and the Euphrates river extended as far as the straits of Hormuz and that between then and c 4,000 BC as global warming caused the melting of the polar ice and rising sea levels it overflowed its shallow banks rapidly creating the Persian Gulf and flooding the land as far north as Basra and then receeding to its present level. The reference for that can be found in "The Cambridge Atlas of Mesopotamia" edited by Michael Roaf Equinox New York 1980 ISBN 0-8160-2218-6 p 20. Rktect (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by an involved editor

I see that this case does not currently have a mediator. It would be helpful for any new mediator to realise that the involved parties have finally reached a consensus on the wording of the opening paragraph that allows for the word "mythologies", but is used in a context that is acceptable to those who dislike the word. To save such a future mediator wading through some very complex, nuanced arguments, I will summarise:

The current wording allows for Noah's Ark to be included amongst the myths of the Abrahamic religions; however, it avoids creating the connection between 'myth' and the Bible/Tanakh or Quran. Thus, those who oppose the use of the word are appeased (sufficiently) because the current wording merely states that Noah's Ark is found in mythologies. It does not state that Noah's Ark is myth, or that the Bible/Tanakh/Quran are myths.

I am one of those who oppose the use of the word. Whilst we have now found a compromise and it appears that this mediation has 'gone cold', the arguments will almost certainly resurface soon. I firmly believe that Wikipedia should make some sort of pronouncement from 'on high' regarding the classification of religions with respect to mythology. This argument is or has been raging across a number of articles. Like Til, I firmly believe that there are some editors who are deliberately using the word to subtly push their POV that the Bible etc are 'myths' (I say this without prejudice and without accusing editors involved in this case, who have generally held good faith in coming to the current compromise). However, my reasons for not wanting 'myth(ology)' applied to religious articles are slightly different to those presented by Til:

• It has been argued that dictionary definitions explicitly state that 'myth' does not imply truth or falsehood. This may be true, but the common perception of the term is that of falsehood. One need only look up 'myth' in a thesaurus. The only antonyms to be found there are 'truth', 'true story' or some such and the synonyms all reflect the common meaning of a 'made up' story. If people commonly perceive the meaning to imply 'falsehood' then WP is remiss in using the word in this context.
• An argument frequently raised by the 'pro' lobby is that WPs own guidelines on 'words to avoid' state that the 'common' meaning should be avoided. This argument is specious. The guidelines are for editors, not for the readers. The readers will take whatever meaning they believe to be correct.
• It has been argued that a link to the 'myth' page will instruct a reader as to the correct definition. It is also been proposed that an 'infobox' containing the definition be included in the page. Surely, any word that has to be explained must be classified as jargon and is therefore discouraged by WP. Further, admitting that it needs to be explained is a clear admission that there is ambiguity about its use.
• The word is, quite simply, offensive to millions of believers around the world. Somebody mentioned that we should not shy away from offending a minority - I heartily agree, but the numbers who believe in the Bible/Quran/Tanakh and many, many other documents they hold as sacred far outweighs the atheist minority who seem to be offended by the word's omission.
• Finally, and perhaps most importantly, so long as we have an ambiguous word we are going to have heated debates about its use. This detracts from all of the noble intentions of Wikipedia. I, for one, would rather be arguing about the substance of an article than spending weeks discussing a single word in the opening paragraph. It is about time that a 'once-and-for-all' judgement on the use of this word be applied and the only way to avoid further conflict is to judge that it is best kept away from 'living' religions.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)