Talk:Deluge (prehistoric)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.
|
||
 |
This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. |
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology .
This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
I am currently very unhappy with the state of this page, and am particularly dismayed by the style of language used in many sections. This is meant to be an encyclopedia article, yet it is written like an incredulous article from a tabloid newspaper. Over the next few days I shall be adjusting some of the language to make it more suitable for Wikipedia. If anyone wishes to preserve the article in its current form, please leave a note here explaining why this absurd and unprofessional style should be maintained.
- Polocrunch
I agree. I have no real knowledge of this subject, and looked it up to become better informed. Sentences beginning "Evidence is mounting that..." that do not quote sources are suspect, to say the least. Please could someone who knows what they are talking about take a broom to this article! BrainyBabe 22:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm reasonably familiar with this area of study, though not professionally. I've actually read about some of the material, and the rest of it doesn't strike me as implausible. More sources would be nice, though. Stephen Aquila 23:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
there are also some suspect comments about skepticism (related to the black sea filling) when last I checked it was a fairly well established theory thanks to Ballard's discovery of ruins, and other more recent discoveries relating to the geology of the region - the supposed claims of geologically community skepticism smell like creationist propaganda to me Lordkazan 19:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Wooley's mud stratum?
Should anything be added about Leonard Woolley's 3.5 m thick layer of mud he discovered at Ur? TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Apparently there has been some recent erosion of support for the flood theory (after the release of Russian research). I don't think anyone's disputing that the sea level has risen; there is, however, debate on whether it was as catastrophic as described. A lot of debate is still going on and the theory doesn't seem to be well established among the scientific community. T@nn 11:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Emptying or filling?
I thought that this article was about dry or partially occupied basins filling suddenly due to some catastrophic event. The examples in North America, and some others, describe events of lakes emptying catastrophically. I imagine that there is another article in Wikipedia that could more appropriately host these items.--King Hildebrand 18:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, emptying or filling: it depends where you're standing. The catastrophic emptying of a lake may not permanently fill a basin (Lake Missoula); neither did the Johnstown Flood. Breaking down encyclopedic articles into the smallest possible fragments arranged alphabetically as in the Index, is a sign of dictionary thinking. The treatment here should remain encyclopedic. --Wetman 20:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Caspian Sea flooding the Black Sea and the Aegean Sea
I don’t think this deluge was the model for Plato’s Atlantis. It happened about 6.300 years before the invention of writing. I have hard to believe that an oral tradition could continue for that long without distorting the original story beyond recognition. The most likely model for Atlantis is the Minoan civilisation. Between 1630 and 1600 BC the volcanic island of Santorini exploded creating a tsunami in the Mediterranean. When the tsunami hit Crete it laid cities in ruins and contaminated the soil with salt. This catastrophe led forward to the fall of the Minoan civilisation. Plato’s description of the destruction of Atlantis is similar to the collapse of the Minoan civilisation as perceived by contemporaries. The descriptions of springs and rocks fond on Atlantis mach those that can be found a volcanic island such as Santorini. Also, Atlantis shared some cultural features with the Minoans. The explanation is that Plato had access to the library of Solon. It contained Greek translations of old Egyptian manuscripts describing the Minoan civilisation and its fall. In fact, Plato refers to Solon travelling to Egypt and there being told about Atlantis! Solon did travel to Egypt but Plato embellished the things he come to know. Anyone who have any objections?
2007-07-24 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
- Objections to what? Are you proposing any edits to the article? TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The Holocene Impact portion seems long enough and distinct enough to warrant its own article, with a brief mention and link in the Deluge article. Pciszek 03:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyvio in Tollmann's hypothetical bolide ?
Reading that last section, it is very different from the rest of the page.
The first article seems original, the second is debatable to me, but the rest of the section has almost no links (except two to Holocene, one of which looks as if it should actually be expanded to Holocene Impact Working Group). In addition, it begins to read like a newspaper article:
So far, astronomers are skeptical but are willing to look at the evidence, said David Morrison, a leading authority on asteroids and comets at the NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, Calif.
Direct quotations are also used and citations are missing. History shows that it was all added at once (except the first paragraph) by 199.64.72.252. Talk page shows that the IP address is a shared one and has been cited a few times for vandalism or near-vandalism.
For that reason, I am going to revert said changes; if you have any objections, you may put the stuff back on and leave a comment as to why you think the content should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IMacWin95 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References removed from article
I have removed these references which were in the middle of the main article text, and were not directly ascribed to any part of the text. If someone recognises them and can reference them properly into the text, please do so:
M. Arnthein, "Sediments and history of the postglacial transgression in the Persian Gulf and the northwest Gulf of Oman, Marine Geology 12:245-66 J.T. Teller, J. Lennie et al., "Calcareous dunes in the United Arab Emirates and Noah's Flood: the postglacial reflooding of the Persian Gulf"Quaternary International '68-71:297-308..
--Dumbo12 (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
