Talk:Gilgamesh flood myth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should there be a section comparing this flood myth to the Hebrew flood myth? They seem to have a lot of similarities. Also, while this myth is referenced in the Epic of Gilgamesh, it's not really his myth. It was told to Gilgamesh by Utnapishtim. Perhaps a name change is in order? Just a few thoughts. --clpo13(talk) 02:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Deluge (mythology) page links to the following two sites that could be turned into a Wiki page with a table of quotes from the 5 flood myths: Ziusudra, Atrahasis, Gilgamesh, Genesis, and Berossus.

The title of this page "Gilgamesh flood myth" is just a short way of saying "the flood myth tablet XI in Standard versions of the Epic of Gilgamesh". Writing a story in which one character repeats an older story to a second character is just a literary technique of no importance. Greensburger 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

The entire alternative translations section is original research. Doug Weller (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed my personal opinions and cited references to publications by two or three scholars that contain conflicting translations. Reporting conflicts that already exist in the scholarly literature is not original research. Greensburger (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV fork

This whole article is a POV fork from the Epic of Gilgamesh and Deluge (mythology) to promote the ideas on the websites cited in the external links: www.noahs-ark-flood.com / www.flood-myth.com - that the Biblical flood was really a 2900 BC flood in Sumer, and Noah was really a Sumerian king "Ziusudra". Believe it or not - read that web site. IansAwesomePizza (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the references you objected to. Greensburger (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But that doesn't remove the problem of it being a fork. "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies."
I'm not sure where to go from here, but if it is a fork, then it probably should be merged or deleted. Doug Weller (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The Alternative Translations section presents the usual translation for selected lines in the Gilgamesh flood myth (a source is cited for each) and then presents an alternative translation that at least one scholar supports (another source is cited for each). Isn't that neutral POV? Merge with what? This is the only page that presents alternative translations of selected lines in the Gilgamesh flood myth. To delete it would be a POV fork "to avoid negative viewpoints or facts". It is a fact that there are alternative translations in the scholarly literature. Greensburger (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
So why isn't it in the main article? Doug Weller (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
For the same reason Immortality is not merged with the Epic of Gilgamesh article; for the same reason Gilgamesh (the king) is not merged with Epic of Gilgamesh; for the same reason Alexander Graham Bell is not merged with the Telephone article - because the focus is distinct. The flood myth is only one sub theme in only one of the Gilgamesh flood myth tablets. The Epic of Gilgamesh is largely about his quest for immortality, not about his kingship, and not about the flood myth. There is a relationship of course, but the flood myth discussion is not related to the immortality discussion. If the flood myth material were put in the Epic article, the discussion of each of the other tablets would have to be expanded to balance the Epic article and it would be too large and lack focus. Greensburger (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)