Talk:Flood myth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Mythology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Ancient Near East (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Neopaganism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Umbrians[edit]

The Umbrian people are the oldest in Italy, they were called Ombrici by the Greeks because they survived the deluge. Etruscans submitted more than 300 Umbrians cities —Pliny the Elder, Book III, paragraph112[1], Umbrorum gens antiquissima Italiae existimatur, ut quos Ombrios a Graecis putent dictos, quos inundatione terrarum imbribus superfuissent. Trecenta eorum oppida Tusci debellasse reperiuntur.


Does this fit anywhere? Also, an etymology: it is from Old French déluge, alteration of earlier deluvie < Latin dīluvium, from lavō (“‘wash’”). Mallerd (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Richard Packham[edit]

Biblical flood geology, while perhaps pseudoscience, may or may not still be a widely held viewpoint among the biblical archaeology community. The citation given at 27, Richard Packham's review of "Veith: The Genesis Conflict" cites William G Dever (as the wikipedia citation states) as evidence that flood geology is no longer widely held among the biblical archaeology community. Dever's quote is as follows:

The "archaeological revolution" in biblical studies confidently predicted by [George E.] Wright and his teacher, the legendary William Foxwell Albright, had come about by the 1980s, but not entirely in the positive way that they had expected. Many of the "central events" as narrated in the Hebrew Bible turn out not to be historically verifiable (i.e., not "true") at all. [William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2001), 21.]

I personally don't see that as a sound citation of the statement that biblical flood geology is or is not a widely held viewpoint any longer. It would seem that a declaration from someone within the biblical archaeological community would be a better source for whether or not it's a widely held viewpoint anymore. Rockiesmagicnumber (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Dever is from within the biblical archaeology community.PiCo (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

This article definitely does not meet NPOV standards. It calls the flood a myth rather than a legend. Overall, it has good information but it is written in a POV way. I firstly propose renaming it to flood legend. Arlen22 (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What part of the NPOV policy does this article definitely fail to meet because of its use the word myth? This part of the NPOV policy suggests it is fine. Ben (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
It discusses multiple flood myths, I'd argue that it is pov to talk about 'the flood'. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
A myth is something that never happened. Usually the flood is called a legend. Arlen22 (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
We've had this discussion before elsewhere. That may be what you mean by myth, but the usage here is in line with our article Mythology. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Further to Doug's comment, it should be noted that not agreeing with something is not grounds for something to be considered not neutral. Neutrality is defined in terms of reliable sources, not in terms of what we agree or disagree with, like or do not like, or see as equivalent treatment of views or not. Cheers, Ben (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Myth is fiction, a fable - usually an entirely fictional event but sometimes a fictionalized account of something that actually happened, whether in a religious context or not.
  • Legend is the more proper term for (intentionally or unintentionally) falsified accounts of something that really happened, like the 40 day global flood in 1656 A.M. (Anno Mundi) in the days of Noah.
The hundreds of flood legends validate the fact of the flood, but not the true details. Remember that 120 years after the flood, at the tower of Babel (1776 A.M.) after the confusion of tongues, all or most of the people no longer understood the original angelish language, so it would be difficult to verbalize the story, although they would retain the images in their memory that formed as they heard or read the account. Anyway, I agree the page should be: Flood_Legends
some legends: http://www.avbtab.org/flood/f05.htm
Telpardec (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to be neutral, read the dictionary definition for the words Myth & Ledgend and I think you will find that ledgend is the better fit. Also it would take out the author's opinion on whether the matter is true or false and it would then be a case of just reporting the evidence according to current knowledge, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.49.81.165 (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Myth does not mean something that never happened, at least not in academic usage. In comparative religion a myth is a story that is sacred and holds a particular significance within a religious tradition. The word legend is not used in religious studies at all. This discussion surges from time to time when an adherent of some religion takes offense at his religions sacred texts being described as "mythology" - it is always easy to refute this as "mythology" can be shown to be a completely neutrally laden word in the comparative study of religion and that it is routinely applied to the body of narratives and beliefs of all religious traditions. This is all amply explained and sourced in the lead of the article Mythology which you should read before arguing further. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting that so many of the world's cultures have stories along this whole subject. If it is a myth, why do societies that were totally separated from each other for all of history (China versus Maya) share the gist of the tale? --Gniniv (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I think you are misunderstanding what "myth" means — have a look at the relevant article. Secondly, there is already a section in the article that discusses work that has examined why flood myths are common. If you're really interested, have a look at these. If, instead, you're wishing to argue that parallels between flood myths mean that there really was a global flood on the Earth, then you're in the wrong place (the right place is possibly flood geology). --PLUMBAGO 16:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Why not just call it "Deluge" in stead of "Deluge myth" then? Let the reader deside if it is a myth or not. If you don't, then it is not consistent with, for example, Dating methodology. That is even considered to be absolutely true, while it lacks evidence. --Broertje128 15:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broertje128 (talkcontribs)
This page is definitely incorrectly labeled "DELUGE MYTH". DELUGE should be replaced by FLOOD, since the key to the story is that people drowned, not that they got rained on. MYTH should be replaced by STORY or LEGEND since the word myth generally carries connotations. For me, I slightly prefer "FLOOD STORY" to "FLOOD LEGEND", although the nuances are not great between these two. Jonathan.mark.lingard (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
First, let me assure you that I read the Mythology article. I understand what you are saying about the difference between the academic usage of the word "myth" and the common usage. However, it is a mistake to think of Wikipedia as an academic-only document. More non-academics than academics use this resource (if you want to argue that point, you're grasping at straws). It is wrong to use the word "myth," knowing that the majority of readers will attach the "falsehood" connotation to it. You are hiding behind academics to mislead people into believing that there really was no flood. This is a POINT OF VIEW error that is not supposed to be in Wikipedia.
I think the following is more neutral, even though my point of view thinks it doesn't go nearly far enough: Although the term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story, academic use of the term generally does not pass judgment on truth or falsity. The Wikipedia article on the Black Sea deluge theory states, "it is agreed by all that the sequence of events described did occur." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.147.240 (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your point is about the Black Sea 'deluge' theory - what isn't agreed is the suggestion that it was some sort of what we would call a flood, rather than a slow rise in the water level, and that this somehow is the source of some flood myth - a slow rise in water level wouldn't be that impressive.. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The end of the last ice age wasn't THAT slow or unimpressive. A rise of metres within a human lifetime (which, in flat areas, could mean a transgression of many miles inland) would be quite dramatic. And in addition to the global sea level rise, there were the far more dramatic breaking out of glacial lakes etc. - creating things like the Channeled Scablands. The draining of practically the whole center of North America seems to have caused the Younger Dryas by disrupting the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation. The Black Sea flood was just one of many, and not the largest or most dramatic. At some point in the early Holocene, pretty much everywhere near a coast would have experienced massive flooding...
While there was certainly not a 'global flood' in the literalist sense of 'everything was underwater', the sea level rise at the end of the last ice age was global in that it affected every continent. Unlike the Black Sea etc. hypotheses, this explains the existence of flood myths in both hemispheres.
In fact there are really only three possible explanations of that fact. Either the myth is so old that it dates back to the common cultural ancestor of all the cultures which have a flood myth (which would be close to the out-of-Africa migration); the myth is for some reason so natural to human beings that it was independently invented practically everywhere; or the myth is derived from events affecting all continents. Since we have a perfectly good example of the latter (the sea level rises at the end of the last ice age and attendant glacial lake breakouts etc.) it seems by far the simplest hypothesis -- much more parsimonious than dozens of independent inventions of the same myth or transmission of a legend for fifty thousand years or so. 165.91.166.134 (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please add some neutrality to the page. It's an embarrassment to the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.169.167 (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree, many people argue that wikipedia is not reliable enough to take it serious. They let anyone edit or put anyone's opinions or views. From what I believe, I think it would be most proper if this article was renamed simply to the Great Flood, or Deluge instead of calling it a "myth." The main discussion is about the Great Flood, not with the purpose to disprove the concept, or belief. This has to do with religion too. No one will go name an article the Christ Myth.--72.199.113.143 (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahem, Christ myth. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to "... there are really only three possible explanations of that fact" - there are at least two more possible explanations:

(4) Wherever there are rivers, there are local river floods. Some of these are reported by story tellers when they travel to distant places and interesting details, such as a family on a large cattle boat, get added to distant stories about unrelated floods. Missionaries taught the cattle boat story to distant people who had their own local flood stories.
(5) Story words are often misunderstood. The Hebrew word "erets" which is usually translated "earth" in English, did not mean the planet earth, it meant the land or country, as in Pearl Buck's novel "The Good Earth" meaning farm land. A story that reports that all of the country was flooded can be misunderstood to mean all of the planet earth was flooded. Greensburger (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Tone[edit]

No comments on this so I see no reason for the tag. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

African flood myths[edit]

It would be great if someone could add African 'great flood' myths. Every other region seems to be covered. Barney Hill (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The East Africa Masai (Maasai_people) have an oral legend, but I don't have any particulars. Likewise the Egyptian book of the dead.
Telpardec (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Jewish[edit]

Is there a reason why this section specifies a 365-day year, rather than the 360-day Jewish year? Downstrike (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Describing the Popul Vuh as pre-Columbian[edit]

We should not be making any claims that suggest that the Popul Vuh is pre-Columbian, and in particular the deluge myth. The first written evidence for it is over two centuries after Spanish contact, Father Ximénez's manuscript.

Stephen Hart: "Any hope that the Popul Vuh might be a completely pre-Columbian text is dispelled in the introduction in which the (unknown) author refers to writing under the Law of God and Christianity" (Popul Vuh 79-80). "

Early Spanish American narrative By Naomi Lindstrom: "The existing version of the Popol Vuh does not reflect exclusively Maya sources, but controversy rages over the degree of Christian influence. Some researchers view the Popol Vuh as a cultural fusion, while others stress its Mayan character." Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the deluge myth is questionable as an precolumbian idea as the idea of multiple creations destroyed in various ways - by fire, water, wild animals etc. is found throughout mesoamerica.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion[edit]

There should be a link to the deluge (prehistory) page close to or within the flood hypotheses section.

68.54.107.114 (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)DelugeSuggestionGuy

Book of Enoch[edit]

I dont think it would be appropriate to add the information taken from the book of Enoch and merge it with the Jewish perspective because Judaism rejects the book of Enoch and doesnt regard it as scriptureYitzhak Mordechai (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be accurate to say that it's rejected by mainstream Judaism, but it's a Jewish book just the same. PiCo (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Article name change[edit]

I can't see any consensus or even any discussion about a name change?TeapotgeorgeTalk 20:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

See the Neutrality section above for a bit of rather dated discussion, don't see much in the way of consensus. Vsmith (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It definitely shouldn't have been done out of the blue in this way. Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm changing it back. If the common name isn't "Flood myth" we should be able to ascertain this, but the current move was clearly done unilaterally and should be reversed.Griswaldo (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
And she's changing the names of books, invented a word legendology (using the replace function I presume) etc. Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted the article changes and posted to her talk page, if someone can please move the article back until we have a discussion, thanks, I'm off to bed. If she continues with no discussion, probably ANI. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
She doesn't seem to want to discuss, she's simply reverted me with no explanation. She's at 2 reverts now, as am I. I really must go! Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
His name is Arlen, not Arlene! 72.25.47.154 (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Mr. IP, you are quite correct. As pointed out above, Myth is much more POV than Legend. I moved it because I have tried discussion before and even though myth is in clear violation of WP:NPOV, the move was blocked. Arlen22 (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
So you try discussion and don't get a consensus but move anyway!TeapotgeorgeTalk 21:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I actually didn't even know that discussion existed. I do remember that I brought it up though. I decided that even though past discussions did not get anywhere (there was a huge one sometime in the past), I figured I could since it was in violation of WP:NPOV. Arlen22 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Do not move pages like this without discussion. That's simply disruptive. It does not violate WP:NPOV in the least. You would need to establish that and to get a consensus behind you before making the move.Griswaldo (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
And furthermore in the Neutrality discussion, there were five for the move and three against it. Who said there wasn't consensus. In that discussion, at least one person, and maybe a second, had the POV that the flood never happened and said to therefore not change the name. I changed it to flood legends, which is more neutral than flood myths. We are trying to get good info to the general public, and therefore we have to use words the way the general public uses them. Arlen22 (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Therefore, per discussion above, I will move it. I won't do a global replace though. Arlen22 (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
You do not understand WP:CONSENSUS. It is not a vote. The discussion above took place over almost 7 months and two of the editors (one an IP that might in fact be one of the other editors) had that as their only post, a 3rd editor has only 55 edits. The pertinent discussion is this one, the only one in fact that is clearly labelled as a name change discussion. We don't disqualify editors who think the flood happened or never happened (at least one of the editors in that discussion is a Young Earth Creationist, possibly others, shall we disqualify them also? Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Arlen22 still needs to explain why the common usage term "deluge myth" is a violation of NPOV. There seems no valid reason for the renaming as far as I can see. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Arlen22 doesn't need to explain anything. He/she needs to be rolled back and then stay away from the article. I have complained about the abysmal level of this "debate", but this beats everything I have seen so far. Seriously, this is just pathetic. --dab (𒁳) 14:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NAME[edit]

For the record, google books indicates that the four combinations "flood myth", "flood legend", "deluge myth", "deluge legend" occur in this order of frequency, in a ratio of about 7:4:4:2. This means that "flood legend" and "deluge myth" have a similar incidence, while "flood myth" is the most common by a significant margin, and "deluge legend" the least common, also by a significant margin.

Unlike most edit-warriors around here, I understand the difference of meaning between "legend" and "myth". Any discussion of a name change based on opinions of "npov" from a religionist or anti-religionist perspective fail from the outset. The only valid approach is look at scholarly literature and try to figure out which is the most commonly used term. --dab (𒁳) 14:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of changing to "Flood myth" if others can agree to this, based on those results. As I mentioned at the fringe theories board I was inclined to think flood myth was most common, but I was too lazy to do the searches ... thanks Dab. The NPOV argument is nonsense.Griswaldo (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I can support a change to "flood myth" as well, since that apparently is common usage (I can only offer the same non-excuse as Griswaldo for not checking it out myself). --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Flood myth is eminently suitable and seems to be in more common usage than deluge myth.TeapotgeorgeTalk 16:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Name change Deluge myth -> Flood myth[edit]

What's the best way to do this? Flood myth redirects here so I can't "move" the page. Just copy and paste the content and change the redirects around or is there a more efficient way to do it?Griswaldo (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

An admin can move a page to a new title if consensus exists. The best way to ensure this is to post at WP:Requested moves and wait for a reasonable time for all views to be heard. Attempting to move articles by copy-and-paste messes up copyright compliance since it loses track of who added what content. EdJohnston (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I wasn't thinking about the page histories. I'll do that. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion below. - GTBacchus(talk) 23:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)



Deluge mythFlood myth — "Flood myth" appears to be the most common name for this content. Requesting move per WP:UCN.Griswaldo (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

  • no opinion. Both titles are fine, and they are also exact synonyms. I have noted above that "flood myth" is more frequent on google books by a ratio of about 7:4, but I have not investigated further to establish which is preferred in academic or generally high quality publications. --dab (𒁳) 08:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The sense I got from other searches was that Flood was more common than Deluge. Deluge tends to be used much less in general in American English (perhaps not in the British Commonwealth nations?), but they are indeed synonyms.Griswaldo (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose; my sense is that "deluge", due to its rarity in modern English, is used to refer specifically to an ancient, large-scale flood, versus "flood", which could refer to an inch of water in someone's basement. Powers T 13:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Note that the three lead illustrations are each titled "The Deluge", not "The Flood". =) Powers T 11:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes I agree, "deluge" is antiquated, but that goes against the idea of WP:UCN. What is the policy justification for supporting a name because it is less common? I'm not sure I understand.Griswaldo (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I meant it's rarely used to refer to common flooding. For ancient floods of Biblical proportions, "deluge" is common enough to be on par with "flood" and so WP:PRECISION takes over. Powers T 17:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak support. If the article were exclusively about the flood in Genesis, then one could point out that the traditional English name for it is "Deluge". But the article is about many different flood stories from many cultures. The article which is specific to the Deluge is Noah's Ark, I believe. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • As you can see from the fourth picture in this article, it's not just Noah's flood that is referred to as The Deluge. Powers T 17:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The article is about other flood myths of various types. One flood myth I know of only involves a flooded village. Dougweller (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
And there's another flooded village myth in the article, and most of the Chinese flood myths are about regional floods. Dougweller (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Flood is more widely used. Cjc13 (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Redaction or composition?[edit]

I'll go along with "redaction" rather than "composition", but I'll question the other changes:

(1) Why remove references to later non-canonical literature?

(2) The redaction was from J and P, not from the surviving ANE literature.0

(3) Giving years for the range, rather than centuries, has the appearance of more precision than we can claim.

TomS TDotO (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this page should go into any detail on the Genesis flood. Unlike most other items on this page, it has its own dedicated article. Of course, the final Hebrew text was redacted from earlier Hebrew texts, and these earlier Hebrew texts (J, P), now no longer extant, were in turn derived from older Assyro-Babylonian accounts (which are still extant). --dab (𒁳) 11:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll remove some of the detail. PiCo (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Composition history of the Book of Genesis[edit]

Moses as author, c.1440 BC: not generally regarded as likely. Documentary hypothesis (four separate versions composed 950-550 BC and joined like Siamese twins c.450): popular up to about 1970, now far less so, but not quite dead. Post-DH theories with a Deuteronomist working c.600 BC, a Yahwsit c.550, and a Priestly c.450: quite popular. Where to find out about these things: I'll have a look and get back to you. PiCo (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

PiCo, see the ref that I've just added to Mosaic authorship. It appears there is no modern consensus rossnixon 03:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The source you added says the following -- "Whybray's work on the Pentateuch could be viewed as the logical conclusion of the direction in which most pentateuchal criticism has been moving in the last three decades, More and more studies have been insisting on the sixth century as the time in which the whole work took shape, and there has been an ever stronger trend to unitary readings and a reaction against minute dissection." I fail to see where the source supports the idea that Mosaic authorship is seriously considered by any scholars today.Griswaldo (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I think we can use that reference in this article. PiCo (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The consensus is that there is no indication that Moses is in any way a historical individual. Plus of course there are some orthodox rabbinical authors who say "BUT... if you really want to believe he was historical, here's how you could argue..." That's just "you may believe if you really want to", it has nothing to do with actual evidence or historiography. If you absolutely want to believe that king Minos or king Romulus are historical, there is nothing to stop you from that either, but there is also no point on writing lengthy arguments about the "historicity of king Minos/Romulus", because there is simply zero evidence: it's a non-issue. --dab (𒁳) 14:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

article structure[edit]

most of this article is just a "list of various unrelated myths about floods". I don't really see the value of that. Especially in cases of myths that already have full coverage elsewhere. The only part of the article that is actually encyclopedic and to the point is the "Hypotheses of origin of flood legends" bit hidden away at the end of the lengthy list part. Perhaps this should be reconsidered. --dab (𒁳) 14:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to get a makeover similar to the one Creation myth recently received. Lets start splitting. merging and deleting. When we're left with the more general information we can consider how to expand the entry.Griswaldo (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Ogygian flood section[edit]

User:PiCo deleted a complete section in Flood myth compiled by many editors over the last three years or so, which incorporated some eighteen internal links, plus three footnotes, claiming that "there's not a single reliable source cited".

The article now reads: "Greek mythology knows three floods": The flood of Deucalion and the flood of Dardanus...

Is everyone happy with this? --Odysses () 22:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Greek section is far too long - longer than any other by a considerable margin. All three Greek flood stories should be combined in a single, brief section.PiCo (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

perhaps read my comment right above this section? The entire article is listcruft and needs to be split anyway. Edit-warring over individual sections is not helpful. --dab (𒁳) 13:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

spliting the article into various sections sounds reasonable. Then individual sections could be edited and expanded more easily. --Odysses () 22:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Odysses, see below. What Dab suggested has been done already. I made sure all the content that didn't already have a home had a new one and then created List of flood myths. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, good work. Perhaps List of flood myths link could be expanded into a paragraph including "main article tag" ({main|tag}}). --Odysses () 23:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Claim for oldest flood myth should be removed[edit]

The Indian flood myth section makes the claim that it is "arguably the oldest flood myth and possibly the origin of all flood myths". How can this be, if it is written AD 320-550, while the Epic of Gilgamesh was written more than 1000 years earlier? --85.146.35.119 (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your observation. I've removed the claim.Griswaldo (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Entry overhaul[edit]

I'm starting the entry overhaul. We need to create an entry here that is about flood myths generally and not a list of them. This means we need to go through all the myths listed individually and either merge the material into appropriate existing entries or create new entries. Then we need to delete the material from this entry. Please understand that no material is being scrubbed from Wikipedia, it is all being moved to appropriate places. Let's get to work.Griswaldo (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a lot of interest in this I see. Too bad. I'm working through this slowly. Any help would still be appreciated.Griswaldo (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I undid some of your additions to Polynesian articles. We get a lot of unsourced stuff added and it tends to distort the material. Perhaps better to mention it on a talk page rather than add unsourced stuff. A lot of flood myths postdate the arrival of the Bible and shouldn't be added into genuine myth material anyway Kahuroa (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I moved the material by following the links, and I apologize if some of them were wrong. Ro'o redirects to Rongo ... if that is not correct then you probably want to fix that as well. Regarding whether or not those myths post-date the arrival of missionaries and if that invalidates them that is not a question for you or I, but for scholars writing about these stories. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Which is exactly why we don't want to mix stuff together that shouldn't be mixed together. Ro'o should redirect to Rongo, that's okay for now since they are cognates and until there is a separate page for the deity as it is manifested in the various cultures. But there was nothing in the material you added that suggested it was about Ro'o the deity - there was just a character of that name in a story about another deity. Ro'o is a common word in Polynesian languages and often used in names. Kahuroa (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes that's fine. I was just following the link that was already placed in this entry. Here the Ro'o material you say is about a different character was wikilinked and it lead to the Rongo entry. I'm not questioning what you're saying just explaining why I ended up doing what I did. Thanks again for pointing it out. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Homeless content[edit]

In Norse mythology, there are two separate deluges. According to the Prose Edda by Snorri Sturluson, the first occurred at the dawn of time before the world was formed. Ymir, the first giant, was killed by the god Odin and his brothers Vili and Ve, and when he fell, so much blood flowed from his wounds that it drowned almost the entire race of giants with the exception of the frost giant Bergelmir and his wife. They escaped in a ship and survived, becoming the progenitors of a new race of giants. Ymir's body was then used to form the earth while his blood became the sea.

The second, in the Norse mythological time cycle, is destined to occur in the future during the final battle between the gods and giants, known as Ragnarök. During this apocalyptic event, Jormungandr, the great World Serpent that lies beneath the sea surrounding Midgard, the realm of mortals, will rise up from the watery depths to join the conflict, resulting in a catastrophic flood that will drown the land. However, following Ragnarök the earth will be reborn and a new age of humanity will begin.

The mythologist Brian Branston noted the similarities between this legend and an incident described in the Anglo-Saxon epic poem Beowulf, which had traditionally been associated with the biblical flood, so there may have been a corresponding incident in the broader Germanic mythology as well as in Anglo-Saxon mythology.

  • Any suggestions for where this content could go?Griswaldo (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Ragnorak should be interpreted more as description of volcanic events, particularly as the major source comes from Iceland (Snorri / Voluspa ). Fire, flood (Joklahaulp) and rebirth are all important themes. Branston interpreted myth in the light of natural events, but barely touches on the volcanic theme, although his Gods of the North has an interesting note accompanying a photo of the eruption of Hekla. He does comment at length on the late influence of christianity on the Norse myths and culture.

So I'd suggest that the Ragnorak flood belongs specifically in Norse / Icelandic cosmology rather than trying to join it to the proto Indo European flood myths.

Matt (fixed IP, have not got round to registering) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.255.103 (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Now what?[edit]

I've found homes for the list like content in the entry but now what do we do? The options are 1) a disambiguation page or 2) a list entry. I think a list page would be better. Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I created List of flood myths and removed the list from this entry.Griswaldo (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Well done - good way to keep this article focused. Kahuroa (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
This was all just the first step. Now we have to build the article here with more general materials on flood myths. I suggest, to anyone who is interested, to consult the most general sources first, like Encyclopedias of mythology and the like, so we can figure out the best structure for the article.Griswaldo (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what your long-term intentions are but the article at the moment reads very strangely, in that it doesn't say much at all. firstly I was looking for info on the Noah myth, and got re-directed here from 'Noah's Flood'. But Noah's not even mentioned. I suggest the re-direct is changed to Noah's Ark. Secondly, before moving on to find the Noah specific article I thought I'd stay here to have a quick read about other flood myths. But there's nothing about them either! In fact it's about the geology of flood myth origins. I would have expected this article to be a survey of the various myths (with links to specific articles) and material on historical/literary origins and connections, with geological background certainly covered but probably the most minor part. DeCausa (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Flandrian Transgression[edit]

This is the source of the flood myths I believe. Eden is underneath the seafloor of the Persian Gulf just east of Kuwait.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flandrian_transgression http://ldolphin.org/eden/

AThousandYoung (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

In the ¶ "Some geologists believe..." I would respectfully suggest moving the sentence that begins "One of the latest..." and the following one which refers to NatGeo News below to follow the reference to Lake Agassiz. This places them in chronological order, which in this instance is helpful since the November '07 Exeter article discusses "Noah's flood kick-started European farming" and the later Southampton article states, "...I hope this will counter some recent ...misguided accounts of the spread of farming." -thus placing the conflicting opinions in direct juxtaposition.Mannanan51 (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

Noah's Ark[edit]

The article states that a flood myth is a symbolic narrative. Noah's Ark is not written as a "symbolic narrative", therefore it does not belong in this article. Zenkai talk 20:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You will need reliable third party references that state that otherwise it's just your opinion?Theroadislong (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Have you read it? It is most certainly not written in a symbolic style. Zenkai talk 20:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Noah's ark is the archetypical example of a flood myth and it is mentioned in every reliable source about flood myths. If you have a source for the viewpoint that it is substantially different from other flood myths please present it, and we can include that viewpoint as well.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem with term "symbolic" is legitimate. The addition of the adjective "symbolic" suggests that ALL flood narratives are written to be intentionally symbolic rather than literal; this simply isn't accurate. The sentence should either simply read "narrative" or "narrative, considered by many scholars to be symbolic." Of course, that second type would require some kind of source to support the claim, whereas "narrative" alone is largely inarguable. (jacoblevi) Perhaps we could even change it to "ancient narrative" (jacoblevi) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacoblevi (talkcontribs) 17:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

CFORK merge candidate[edit]

FYI, there is an article, which appears to be a CFORK of this one, at Noach (parsha) which is being considered for deletion. I don't know if there is any content in that article which is worthy of being merged with this one, but if there is, please migrate it over. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ 05:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The only User that is considering Noach (parsha) for deletion is:
(cur | prev) 05:25, 9 July 2012‎ Mann jess (talk | contribs)‎ . . (93,777 bytes) (+699)‎ . . (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noach (parsha). (TW)) (undo)
User:Mann_jess, you are out of control. Jasonasosa (talk) 05:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
That's not really helpful. You could perhaps participate at the AfD. Or, you could help here to identify content in that article which matches this article's scope.   — Jess· Δ 06:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Dude, the fact that you are not familiar with the Jewish POV articles like Noach (parsha), means that you are not familiar with WP:POVFORK, shows up your limited editing abilities. Jasonasosa (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Jess is a good editor -I'm glad you struck your comments]. Part of POVFORK says "This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies." If that article is a povfork it should be deleted. If it isn't then I suspect it needs work.

Talmud[edit]

The Flood myth#Historicity section is strictly secular. This section does not incorporate versions of the myth, it is strictly based on secular evidence, science, or hypotheses. The Talmud is based on traditions which are religious POV, thus being inappropriate to include in this secular section. However, as I noticed, it might serve well somewhere in the Flood myth#Mythologies section, but certainly not under the The Mesopotamian flood story paragraph. Thus it was reverted yet again, and by an additional editor. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 13:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This article might have something interesting for the hypothesis section[edit]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/12/12/archaeologist-claims-evidence-noahs-biblical-flood/ Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

ARkStorm[edit]

Shouldn't something about atmospheric river storms be under hypotheses? The ARkStorm simulation was named referencing the Biblical Deluge. 40 days of rain fits with modelling of some of the most severe archaeological evidence of previous storms in California. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

We would need sources connecting that idea to this topic.   — Jess· Δ 06:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
A google news search on ARkStorm and Gilgamesh, Noah, or Deluge, shows many columnists linking the two -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed name change by Plcoopr[edit]

Plcoopr[edit]

My intentions was to change the idea from myth to theory. I thought that would be a more appropriate fit for the article. I felt I was acting accordingly to the second piller of wikipedia (Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.) I left the article to research on how to change the title of a wiki article. My plans were to come back and finish editing the article. I had plans to add a few new section of the "opposing view" to the article. I felt this article scoffed at and was very dismissive of the idea that the flood has tangible evidence(in recent years). To say something is a myth is completely disregarding the large portion of the population that believes and have "imperial evidence" to prove their point. I do respect the policies of Wikipedia and intend to abide by them wholeheartedly. I did not mean to garner and unnecessarily attention form the powers that be. I apologize for you having to take time to tend to this situation. I can assure you the edits were coming from a good place. For future reference, If I did want to make drastic changes to an article, what would be the correct protocol to follow Plcoopr (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Use the talk page and ask for a name change in this case. You'll have to argue that our policy at Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names supports the change you want and you'll need to get consensus. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I would think "Flood theory" would be a no-go. There may be a "theory" that one or more of the various flood myths reflect historical events, but I don't think that the term "flood theory" is in use and would therefore fail WP:COMMONNAME. I put "flood theory" in google books and got 3,300 hits and from a quick look over the results I couldn't see any that referred to the topic of this article. "Flood myth" generated 11,000+ results all appearing to be on topic. DeCausa (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
the problem with "flood theory" is that it suggests a scientific, rather than mythic, origin for the narrative. This page is about the "myth"--that is, the ancient story--rather than a scientific "theory." A different page would have to be started for "flood theory," one which discuses those who think a great flood is a viable scientific explanation for certain geological anomalies. (jacoblevi)--Jacoblevi (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hugh Ross a literalist?[edit]

In the section on claims of historicity DeCausa has described Hugh Ross as a Biblical literalist. I find this puzzling. A local flood in the Persian Gulf area is traditionally a rather liberal and non-literal interpretation of Genesis. Clearly he is very concerned to defend Christianity but most of the criticisms in his WP article come from "Young Earth Creationists". He is also talking way outside his area of expertise (astrophysics), which is more worrying. (I haven't read anything else by him but on one video-clip he appeared very ready to make claims way outside his area.)

The aim of this section is to point to the possible historical antecedents rather than to "prove" the link with one particular flood myth. The links at the end of the paragraphs are more important. I'm inclined to remove the Ross quote altogether. The quote from Ward Sanford who wrote the other piece cited at the beginning of the paragraph predates the Anthropology considerably but does make the link with the flood stories and he is a geologist, so I'm inclined to leave that. Chris55 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ross (Hugh Ross (creationist)) has a literalist belief in the bible - just not quite as literal as some. He believes that the biblical flood happened. Maybe not precisely as in the bible but close enough. Prior to that edit, his view was being asserted without referring to its provenance - as though it were NPOV and from an RS. My main concern was to correct that misrepresentation. But if you would like to delete him altogether, I have no objection. DeCausa (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, but changing the title of this section to "Claims of historicity" seems to duplicate the next section, "Hypotheses". The first paragraph includes a note saying that there is no record of flood in Israel and I can't see the relevance of that point (it's been reinstated recently). The focus of the Biblical story, up to the time Abraham moved from Ur, as well as the earlier Gilgamesh epics, were all in the Mesopotamian area. Most myths have foundations in history (think of Troy) although the reality is often very different. If the major growth of early Mesopotamian civilization was in an area now covered by a shallow sea, then it is easy to see that stories would arise. Perhaps the Sanford quote also deserves treatment in the hypothesis section but I thought it important to include a linking citation. Chris55 (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I changed the title of the section because the original title of "Historicity" was obviously POV. If there's duplication, that's a content issue not because of the title I gave it. Probably the two sections should be merged under the title of "Claims of historicity", which is more informative/descriptive than "Hypotheses" (Hypothesis suggesting what?) I didn't insert/reinsert "no record of flood in Israel" so can't say why it's there. DeCausa (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Similarities in flood myths[edit]

Maybe we can construct an NPOV section. We could quote Morris briefly, but not his statistics. Sorry, but I wouldn't trust them one bit. We can't write a section on this without using Alan Dundes (ed.) The Flood Myth, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1988. Then there's this[1] Historical Genesis: From Adam to Abraham By Richard James Fischer - a Christian book that disagrees with Morris. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I really cocked up my edit. I tried twice to write my reasons in an edit summary but failed. First, it's copied virtually verbatim and thus copyvio (although for some reason the number he studied was changed to match a number in another source). It's clearly WP:UNDUE - we need to cover this in an NPOV way as I suggest above. We should not describe him as though he describes the Christian viewpoint, but as the YEC viewpoint. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Forgot to note that the editor reverting me is almost certainly a sock of Allthekidsinthestreet/Heatelite. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allthekidsinthestreet following me here because of the earlier SPI as he's done with another editor. Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The section was clearly COPYVIO. The same editor has added a similar list to the spinoff List of flood myths, this time citing also the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, so do you want to deal with that? That might be a better place for a proper comparison. It's odd that the list in the lead of this article only includes 3 out of 7 articles which mention a flood. One would hope that neutrality respects religious people who believe in a flood without shouting "myth" at every opportunity. Chris55 (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I've dealt with the other article and mentioned this to the editor - I wouldn't have expected this from him but then I don't know him that well. Thanks for your response. Dougweller (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Much apologies for my blatant stupidity. I should have summarized the information rather than copy and pasting and then put in the block quote with the ref. However I fell in love with the numbers and I lost my head... twice... I also agree that the content should not have been put into the lede of the List of flood myths page. Considering I've been a party to several Talk discussions where idiots paste in "whatever" into the lede, I should obviously know better. You know we all make mistakes...
Your further discussion escapes me. I add a section where there was - no - content and it appears I'm being beat up because I didn't use the "correct" sources? So another source disagrees with the one I inserted - ok...? Nowhere in the text I added did I say this was "the" Christian viewpoint or even "a" Christian viewpoint - its just presented as a statistical analysis of the data and is inserted because the author had correlated the many flood myths into statistical data (after what I thought was an exhaustive Google search which turned up nothing else similar to this) and is presented as a sterile NPOV representation of such. Is this about Morris being a Christian? However, maybe I'm misunderstanding the discussion.
Finally, I don't want to further muddy the waters, but is the text that Chris55 added on the "List" page about the Maasai (The Maasai myth, which has obvious Judeo-Christian influences, is as follows) backed up by the text ref? Page 45 is not listed in the preview items of the ref he added so I am not able to verify whether this is his opinion or something that the author states. The whole point of this is that native cultural heritage - pre-Christian ministry influence - appear to share a common history of a flood whether it was a regional flood in the Mideast, and storms in the Carribean or Pacific rim, or flash floods in the American midwest. So unless you are saying that the statistical data presented by Morris is "wrong", I'm not sure I'm following the point. Again is it simply because Morris is a Christian...? Ckruschke (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
First, we all, including me, do things we kick ourselves for later. And it isn't about Morris being a Christian, although it is partially about him being a YEC Christian (and there are a number of sources we use that make it clear there is a problem with trusting YEC claims like this - what were the questions would be a big issue). So, yes, I don't trust his data one bit and we shouldn't present the specifics, just his conclusion. He represents one Christian point of view. Fischer is also a Christian who points out the differences. It's trivial to say that most cultures have memories of floods. Of course they do, floods are extremely common, and over millennia any culture will experience memorable ones. Morris tries to make them look more alike than they are. And Dundes goes into a lot of detail. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
See [2] on this survey, [3] on other work of his. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of Morris' issues. I still think this is simply a collection of correlation statistics, but then I'm an engineer and all I saw were the numbers. I thought that the data would ADD to the page and was obviously naive of any other issues. Clearly I'm in the wrong about every way you can be so further discussion is moot. Thanks again. Ckruschke (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
To respond to your point about the Maasai myth, the words I added are copied directly from the source. That page is available on the web and I added a link to it. Chris55 (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Chris - doesn't really matter one way or another at this point, but your link is for a free looksee of the book (which I had also found when I made my original insertion) and it doesn't include the first 110 pages or so. Thus my question about your ref from page 45. If you pasted another link (other than the Google one on the page) and I missed it, I apologize for overlooking it. Ckruschke (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Why do we say myth?[edit]

Monomyth category[edit]

This article is categorised as "monomyth". I deleted it as I don't think the monomyth hypothesis is established in academic research, but rather a fringe theory from one person. This makes is improper as an encyclopedic category. User Maunus reverted this chance with the argument "I dont think that is really the case, and I also think it is relevant as a see also even if it were". Cleary it is relevent if it's a fringe theory, otherwise anyone with a theory on myths and religion (and there are many) would be allowed to freely categorise according to their whim. So, is it an accepted theory (hypothesis really) or not? I've read some criticism of the theory online that says it's not taken seriously in academia. But it's really not up to me to prove it's fringe, it's up to the proponents to prove it's legitimate. Otherwise, the category should be removed. --Devadatta (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If you are saying that the category shouldn't exist, you need to go to WP:CSD. The term monomyth shows up a lot in a Google books search. This[4] is someone else discussing Campbell and the Great Flood. Another academic source:[5]. And [6] It very much looks like an accepted concept to me, or at least accepted by a number of scholars. See also[7]. No evidence that it is fringe. Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I checked your references. Your first goes to a book called "Popular Controversies in World History" with pro and con discussion about topics like if the Flood myth is based on a real flooding or whether the Shakespeare dramas really was written by him. The con part goes through argument from among others Velikovsky, Freud, Jung & Campbell. Velikovsky is as pure as pseudoscience get. Jung and Freud are not far behind this, especially Jung which was Campbells favorite.
Your second goes to a book which just mentions Campbell in a paragraph or so. "Monomyth" is then mentioned three times in the book and refers to theories of François Dupuis, George Stanley Faber & Goethe. Not Campbell.
However, your third reference could resonably be said to support one scholar who uses Campbell's concept. This is not surprising at all, in fact I assume that there are more academics who do. Considering that there are Nobel prize laureates who support pseudo-science like homeopathy and AIDS-denialism, it's not so strange. The important question is not whether some academic exist who supports it, but if it's accepted in academia by at least a large minority (like 15-20% or so). As a reference, Jung is not accepted in psychology (nor is Freud, at least by researchers). About your last reference, a Google book search on "monomyth", it only shows it's popularity, not acceptance in academia. Lastly, I dont suggest deleting the "monomyth" category. It's certainly fitting in articles like Star Wars and films inspired by Chris Vogler memo (which should be plenty). --Devadatta (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Jung, Freud and Campbell are all immensely influential, and whether or not you consider them pseudoscience is utterly irrelevant. Categories do not have to be scientifically wellfounded, and not everything that is not scientific is fringe. Jung and Campbells theories are essentially literary theories, that belong to the humanities analysing human narrativives and neither claims to be a scientific theory in the popperian sense of the word. Whether or not Campbell is currently used by many academics is also irrelevant, because you will not find a book about mythology that does not mention it. It has historical importance, as one of the foundational approaches to the study of mythology. Nietzsche, Kant and Descartes "theories" are also pseudoscience under your definition, but that is rather irrelevant when aiming to consider whether a category is appropriate for a specific article. If you conduct a google scholar search for "monomyth campbell" you will find dozens of recent articles that uses Campbells monomyth model to interpret myths, novels and other kinds of narratives.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Pleins mentions Noah and Jacob, not just Starwars. "Whether it is Lord Buddha, Luke Skywalker. Noah, or the biblical patriarch Jacob, the story of an individual who has suffered separation from home, tackled trials on the road, and experienced a triumphant return (or a profound spiritual realization) is destined to inspire listeners to commit themselves to more meaningful lives. In its ancient, modern, or biblical forms, the monomyth in all its variations governs the thinking of boys and men the world over." Dougweller (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and I acknowledged that: "your third reference could resonably be said to support one scholar who uses Campbell's concept". So, that's one academic. But there's thousands of them. --Devadatta (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
So what? All 3 of my sources mention monomyth. As Maunus points out, this is not so rare that you can just dismiss it. I'm wondering if the Monomyth meets NPOV. The sources I've looked at don't seem as critical of the concept as the article, if they are critical at all. Dougweller (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I misunderstood the edit, I thought it was a see also link. I dont think the article should be categorized as "monomyth" but that "monomyth" should be mentioned in the see alsos or in the text. Not all hypotheses or theories that are not accepted are fringe, Campbells theory is historically important and is still taught as an example of historical approaches to mythology in textbooks and in univiersities. That makes it not a fringe theory, just a historical theory that has fallen out of favor.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
See this link to The Oxford Companion to World Mythology[8]. Dougweller (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The link provided above clearly establishes that the concept of monomyths is significant enough to be included in a recent, broadly encyclopedic reference work regarding mythology, and I would have to think that is sufficient enough for our purposes. And that source is yet another reference work I will, eventually, try to establish lists of articles for. John Carter (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Vital but expensive source[edit]

The Primeval Flood Catastrophe Origins and Early Development in Mesopotamian Traditions Y. S. Chen Oxford Oriental Monographs 352 pages | 16 black-and-white plates | 234x156mm 978-0-19-967620-0 | Hardback | 12 December 2013 [9] Discusses all major aspects of Mesopotamian Flood traditions in depth

Offers a systematic treatment of the historical development of the Flood traditions, and makes important new observations on the origins and development of the traditions

Provides analysis based on an extensive and systematic documentation and analysis of Sumerian and Babylonian flood terms in their literary contexts

Unravels the complex historical relationship between the Flood traditions and major literary and historiographical traditions in Mesopotamia

Sheds new light on our understanding of each individual source (e.g., the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic) involved

Explores the socio-political circumstances in which the Flood traditions emerged and evolved

Dougweller (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is this classified as a myth?[edit]

I would be interested to know the criteria for what constitutes a myth? Wikipedia has plenty of historical articles about the ancient world that are not classified as myths, many of them with significantly less historical evidence than the flood (which is supported globally across many traditions). I realize that for some, the flood's widespread ascription to a deity may invalidate the narratives as factual history, but even if all the narratives were fictional, there is no rational basis to conclude that the flood itself was fictional. Logically, there must have been some common historical event behind the various accounts, ie a great flood. Grand Dizzy (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

From myth:

Alan Dundes defined myth as a sacred narrative which explains how the world and humanity evolved into their present form, "a story that serves to define the fundamental worldview of a culture by explaining aspects of the natural world and delineating the psychological and social practices and ideals of a society";

Editor2020, Talk 03:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, there are separate articles on possible historical events related to these flood narratives. E.g. Black Sea deluge hypothesis and Great Flood (China). utcursch | talk 06:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The tale of Tiddalik the Frog[edit]

The section "Mythologies" contains a discussion of "The tale of Tiddalik the Frog", which from the description (I am not aware of this tale from other sources) does not fit the general pattern of flood as a threat and might be inappropriate for this page. In addition, the time spent on this particular tale appears disproportionate and a brief mentioned and a link to a dedicated article might be more appropriate.80.226.24.14 (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)