44
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 385:
Line 385: + + + + + + + + + +
Why don't we have an article on the word "flood" in general?
"Cultures around the world record a world-destroying flood in their oral or written histories." Really? I'd like to see some sources on that. Normally I'd just add a cite on the article, but that's sure to be reverted. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)
"Cultures around the world record a world-destroying flood in their oral or written histories." Really? I'd like to see some sources on that. Normally I'd just add a cite on the article, but that's sure to be reverted. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)
: It would have been reverted in this case, because that is an introductory and general statement. The support for it is provided, with references, in the body of the article. The article does not say that the stories are "ubiquitous". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)
: It would have been reverted in this case, because that is an introductory and general statement. The support for it is provided, with references, in the body of the article. The article does not say that the stories are "ubiquitous". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)
== Why don't we have an article on the word "flood" in general? ==
I got to this article when I put in the word "flood", and expected an article about floods in general. Why is it that we don't have an article like that?
This is exactly the kind of thing that liberals make fun of us for. We claim to be a viable alternative to wikipedia, yet we are missing articles on so many different things.
Who here is in favor of making an article on floods in general?
We are an educational website, after all.