Talk:Flood myth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Other theories

Should I add a link to Immanuel Velikovsky, who iirc explained all of the Hebrew Testament with a comet hypothesis ?

Or is there already too much comet content>

Linlithgow (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too much already to add something so thoroughly refuted. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Schmidt

Do I see a source from 1971, to support a source from 1931? Similar here. If this hypothesis has more support, more sources are likely available, including some more recent that may put it in perspective. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical Flood mostly missing

Is there a particular reason why the biblical Flood is almost entirely missing from this page (apart from a few offhand references)? It would seem to be one of the most prevalent versions of such a myth in contemporary mythology. FabBol (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, apart from images, where it seems over-represented, it's pretty much
WP:BOLD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, this needs to be fixed. Per
WP:SUMMARY, it should be covered here, just in highly-compressed detail since there is a main article on it. In its present state, this article is actually quite confusing in mentioning the best-known flood myth in the lead then never covering it the main body of the article. I suspect that coverage of it was removed by some Abrahamic religionist.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Did some digging and found out there was coverage of the Biblical flood in the article's body too, but it was removed in 2021 with the justification that "it has its own article". I'll restore a paragraph about it. StephenMacky1 (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a bizarre (albeit well-intentioned) editing choice. Thank you for unearthing it and helping to rebalance the article! FabBol (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potentitial source

[1]

References

  1. ISSN 2582-7421
    . Retrieved 29 September 2023.

Is it generally WP-good for this article? According to WP, Anzer Ayoob is a journalist. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2] published by [3] so I'm afraid not. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PSCI

@

WP:PSCI. The Young Drias impact hypothesis never was mainstream science. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

You're violating WP:NPOV. One published paper does not equal an objective statement that a scientific hypothesis has been "refuted". KronosAlight (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:BURDEN is upon you to show that it ever counted as mainstream science. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
There's no burden to show that it has ever counted as mainstream science. Continental drift was once considered fringe. I don't know if the Younger Dryas (correcting your spelling) Impact Hypothesis is going to turn out to be true. But one paper claiming to have 'refuted' it does not mean you have permission to violate explicit Wikipedia rules claiming that it therefore has been. There must be a critical consensus demonstrated over time and from numerous sources for such claims to be permissible. Your edit does not meet such a criteria, and therefore I have reverted it in order to enforce the standards. If you have better or more numerous sources, you are welcome to add them and then revert the change. KronosAlight (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:BALL. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
But you are in fact venturing a very concrete hypothesis about not just its standing but its validity, on the basis of a single paper. In no other circumstance would that be an acceptable view to present on Wikipedia as if it was neutral, when it clearly is not. A neutral view can of course indicate the falsity of a claim or hypothesis or theory - as with Flat Earthers and so on. But it can do so only on the basis of a critical mass of sustained scientific consensus. No such consensus exists yet on this theory, hence the claim that "it has been refuted" is not a neutral claim.
Again, if you'd like to find or cite other papers which demonstrate that this refutation has been a sustained and mainstream position for many years, please do so. "This claim has been considered pseudo-scientific" or something of the like would then be justifiable in reference to clear Wikipedia rules. In lieue of such work being done, it would be best not to mislead readers that there is a clear, settled, and sustained mainstream scientific position on this hypothesis. KronosAlight (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:FRINGE science. As I said: Wikipedia has an article about it, please read that article. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
You claiming so does not in fact make it so. I'm not interested in your personal opinions about various scientific theories. If you believe it's pseudoscience, demonstrate this through citations of multiple mainstream, high-reputation scientific journals. If you cannot do so, accept that you are violating Wikipedia rules. It is, in fact, binary. KronosAlight (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:AE. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
You have not demonstrated fallacies, misinterpretations or fake data, nor is any one academic paper without any further context, response, or examination able to do so in any context. Spinoza's metaphysics has not been definitively "debunked" just because one bloke published a paper seeking to disprove it, for example.
Until you are able to do so, you're on the wrong side of Wikipedia's rules on NPOV.
I don't have any problem with labelling the theory as pseudoscience if you're actually able to marshall the citations necessary to do so.
If you feel passionately about this, please do find those sustained and high-reputation refutations and add them to the unsubstantiated claim you object to being removed.
This is an important and valuable part of the process on Wikipedia. But until you are able to meet those standards, the page will remain as it is. KronosAlight (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:RS
.
You do use the jargon of an experienced Wikipedian. But if such jargon is not matched by evidence, it will come to bite you in the back. Because you make claims that I would violate
WP:NPOV, claims which are not based upon evidence. Instead, you defend a hypothesis which is objectively fringe science, so you are objectively POV-pushing for fringe theories. Pretenses that my view is not well cited are just that: pretenses. That even debunkers of pseudoscience lambast this pseudo-hypothesis in skeptical journals should give you pause. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
If your view is well cited, then add the citations to the article rather than lazily pushing your personal opinions without evidence on Wikipedia.
You simply declaring your opinion 'well cited', and the opinion of an article section 'fringe theory', does not actually make either of those claims true unless you back them up.
So, again: add the citations or stop objecting to an edit which conforms the article to Wikipedia rules of neutrality. KronosAlight (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flood_myth&oldid=1217254229"