Talk:Flood myth

Dates listed at beginning of Article

Um, hi. The dates listed in the first paragraph of the Mythologies section don't make sense. It says that the Eridu Genisis predates the Atra-Hasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh, but also says that the Atra-Hasis dates back to 1800 BC while the Eridu Genisis dates back to 1600 BC. 1800 BC is earlier than 1600 BC so how does the Eridu Genisis predate the Atra-Hasis or the Epic? Hope someone notices and fixes the article. 208.90.106.67 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

You're right. It's a fine mess. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

North American native peoples

@DougWeller, hello! I'm massively ignorant on this, but of course it's on topic etc. For WP:LEAD purposes, if more of these are added, we might go in a "many North American native peoples have Flood myths..." direction, but I don't think we're there yet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Crunchista Hello. See WP:LEAD. Do you see the problem with starting the first sentence after the WP:LEAD with "Another example of a flood myth is..."? That is one problem I see with your latest edits, but I'm going to bed now. Ping to @Doug Weller and @Iskandar323 if they wish to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for criticism. I just read WP:LEAD, but still don't get it. You mean that the ‘Another’ (exampel) is not inviting enough to continue reading cause too complicated? I'll change it back to the original wording ‘One example’. What other problems do you see Crunchista (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I fully protected the article for three days in order to give time for discussion to reach a consensus. Please be cautious about quoting source material because quoting too much may be a copyright violation which is regarded as a serious problem. Also, the point being made above about WP:LEAD is that the first couple of paragraphs of an article (before the first heading) must be a summary of material that already exists in the body of the article. Finally, there should be no commentary in an article. The body (text following the first heading) has to be a self-contained article; it should not refer to what was in the lead. Editors here have to provide a summary of what reliable sources say without any personal observations. Questions can be asked here, and more general advice can be found at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hm, actually I wanted to provide the word ‘organisation’ (of the Sumerian gods) with a source. It's freely accessible, so I don't think the publisher would complain about the quoted passage. Rather, it seems to me that the quote is an incentive to read the whole interview. If necessary, however, I would summarise the relevant statements in concise sentences of my own and include them in the reference. For the other criticism, I need a suitable example from the article. Otherwise I don't know what you mean. --Crunchista (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

My knee-jerk reaction on that particular point is that "organisation" is an odd word to use for a group of gods. Can't remember seeing the Olympians or the Aesir or the Ennead described like that. Not that it's necessarily wrong, but it sounds weird. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Link for the source? Doug Weller talk 11:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

What does the cited source say about the contents of the Atra-Hasis? It's talking about Göbekli Tepe. Besides, we don't use interviews as sources (even if the person talking is a scholar). – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand, Gråbergs. But when cuneiform was deciphered, it also sounded extremely confusing to the ears of devout Christians to have to hear about an entire pantheon instead of a single god who is said to have fabricated the first pairs of humans out of dust. Isn't it WP's claim that we should bring the topics up to date with the current state of science, where feasible also interdisciplinary? Klaus Schmidt uses ‘organisation’ for clearly understandable reasons, in the sense of a ‘cross-group’ alliance. https://www.spektrum.de/magazin/eine-revolution-im-grossen-stil/836862

Yes, Schmidt is talking about Göbekli Tepe. But also about the Mesopotamian gods ("Anuna"), from whom, among other things, agriculture is said to have originated. The Anuna gods in Anthrahasis do just that. AAlso constructing humans - like Goethe's sorcerer's apprentice his little helpers... --Crunchista (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The claim in no way follows from the source. This is what the source says, in the part you've quoted (so presumably it's what you're talking about):

Einige der Reliefs wirken recht abstrakt. War das schon eine Art Schrift?

Das sicher nicht, wohl aber ein Repertoire heiliger Zeichen, die von allen verstanden wurden. Dergleichen sieht man schon in altsteinzeitlichen Höhlenmalereien. Doch für die brauchten die Künstler nur wenige Stunden, während die Herstellung der Pfeiler und Reliefs Wochen, eher Monate erforderte.

Lässt sich so etwas noch von einer kleinen Gruppe von Jägern bewerkstelligen?

Nein, und das ist das Spannende am Göbekli Tepe. Er beweist, dass schon im frühen Neolithikum eine gruppenübergreifende Organisation existiert haben muss, wie man sie erst Jahrtausende später erwarten würde.

This is, very clearly, not a statement about either the Atra-Hasis or Mesopotamian gods at all. That Schmidt later says that's it's interesting to think whether there might be some parallels between the site and a Sumerian tale about the gods bringing agriculture to humanity doesn't in the slightest mean the source's earlier use of the word "organisation" (in reference to a group of historical people) somehow applies to Mesopotamian gods, much less that it applies to a specific group of gods in the Atra-Hasis (a text which he doesn't mention at all).

Besides, I'm not exactly sure why we'd want to refer to them as an organisation to begin with? – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Because there is a reputable, interdisciplinary source for this.--Crunchista (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The quoted text seems off-topic for this article as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Of course, the ‘thought-provoking interest’ expressed by Schmidt does not mean that anything is true at all. In my opinion, however, the decisive points are 1- that Schmidt's ‘beautiful idea’ POSTULATES a possible (speculative!) connection between G. Tepe and the Anuna gods from the Sumerian tradition AND 2- that WP's mission is to encourage readers to think for themselves... 3- The criticism that Schmidt does not mention Athrahasis explicitly (only the ‘Sumerian tradition’ of Anuna gods, from whom agriculture originates) seems a little contrived. Schmidt is a reputable source; the Anuna practice agriculture in the Atrahasis epic (which processes the Sumerian tradition!, in Akkadian). WP rules are there, among other things, to protect WP against dubious sources, not to discredit dedicated additions as ‘off topic’. I am happy to provide the passage from one of his papers in which Schmidt explicitly talks about cross-group organisations of hunter-gatherers that begin with agriculture. If the thesis, that Schmidts beautiful idea is off topic would be obsolet. --Crunchista (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)