This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The reasons why I think this article deserves to and should stand on its on are that there are both traditional mythological versions of the Great Flood (or various floods, which don't really fit into a coherent chronology), as well as a more traditional historical approach, although there are differences in opinion among historians in this area, particularly since we are dealing the more ancient parts of Chinese history and some of the oldest, or claimed to be oldest documents. I don't think that an article, for example, on Yu the Great is the best place for an overall coverage of the Great Flood, after all it is dated to the reign of Yao, and Yu was a relative late-comer when he began his flood control activities (after Gun and Gong Gong); and, also the whole flood story includes the involvement of agricultural development by Qi/Houji, the Abandoned One, who is ancestral to the House of Zhou, the activities of Yi the hunter, and so on. Handling all of the various aspects of the flood in any one of these articles seems less workable than using a separate article which can serve as a nexus for this. (adapted from my talk page) Dcattell ( talk) 17:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Page moved to "Great Flood (China)", apparently a better title, using the move tool. Dcattell ( talk) 01:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Just quickly to suggest a source that could add a lot to this article. It's called The Flood Myths of Early China (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2006), by Mark Edward Lewis, which contains all there is to know about floods and flood taming in ancient Chinese culture. Good editing! Madalibi ( talk) 00:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone. @ Dcattell:, @ Dougweller:, @ Mercurywoodrose:, @ Madalibi:. I suggest another splitting for this article. I mean, this article should be the main article about Chinese deluge myth BUT, most of the content should be moved to a new article, i.e. Gun-Yu Flood -or something like that. Because, as far as I know, there are still another 3 unrelated version of Chinese deluge myth: Fuxi-Nuwa great flood; Nuwa great flood; East Sea deluge (or related to the mulberry field and Magu). I'm gonna make the articles on Indonesian Wikipedia and I like to let you know -and help me if you have time :p . Thank you for your understanding -and "help" #choked. Okkisafire ( talk) 03:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Okkisafire ( talk) 15:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
What is the source for the final sentence?
This just seen on the BBC website:
which has a link to the Science magazine article:
I'll leave it to others with greater knowledge of this topic to make any Article edits they deem appropriate. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.26.60 ( talk) 02:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Re the previous section, the contribution and significance of the "Outburst flood" article needs work. But I am somewhat dismayed by the poor state of "referencing" (citation). Would anyone mind terribly if I did a thorough "refimprove"? In particular, I would template full and short citations, and add the year to the short-cites (necessary to distinguish three different "Wu et al." sources). ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The reasons why I think this article deserves to and should stand on its on are that there are both traditional mythological versions of the Great Flood (or various floods, which don't really fit into a coherent chronology), as well as a more traditional historical approach, although there are differences in opinion among historians in this area, particularly since we are dealing the more ancient parts of Chinese history and some of the oldest, or claimed to be oldest documents. I don't think that an article, for example, on Yu the Great is the best place for an overall coverage of the Great Flood, after all it is dated to the reign of Yao, and Yu was a relative late-comer when he began his flood control activities (after Gun and Gong Gong); and, also the whole flood story includes the involvement of agricultural development by Qi/Houji, the Abandoned One, who is ancestral to the House of Zhou, the activities of Yi the hunter, and so on. Handling all of the various aspects of the flood in any one of these articles seems less workable than using a separate article which can serve as a nexus for this. (adapted from my talk page) Dcattell ( talk) 17:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Page moved to "Great Flood (China)", apparently a better title, using the move tool. Dcattell ( talk) 01:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Just quickly to suggest a source that could add a lot to this article. It's called The Flood Myths of Early China (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2006), by Mark Edward Lewis, which contains all there is to know about floods and flood taming in ancient Chinese culture. Good editing! Madalibi ( talk) 00:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone. @ Dcattell:, @ Dougweller:, @ Mercurywoodrose:, @ Madalibi:. I suggest another splitting for this article. I mean, this article should be the main article about Chinese deluge myth BUT, most of the content should be moved to a new article, i.e. Gun-Yu Flood -or something like that. Because, as far as I know, there are still another 3 unrelated version of Chinese deluge myth: Fuxi-Nuwa great flood; Nuwa great flood; East Sea deluge (or related to the mulberry field and Magu). I'm gonna make the articles on Indonesian Wikipedia and I like to let you know -and help me if you have time :p . Thank you for your understanding -and "help" #choked. Okkisafire ( talk) 03:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Okkisafire ( talk) 15:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
What is the source for the final sentence?
This just seen on the BBC website:
which has a link to the Science magazine article:
I'll leave it to others with greater knowledge of this topic to make any Article edits they deem appropriate. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.26.60 ( talk) 02:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Re the previous section, the contribution and significance of the "Outburst flood" article needs work. But I am somewhat dismayed by the poor state of "referencing" (citation). Would anyone mind terribly if I did a thorough "refimprove"? In particular, I would template full and short citations, and add the year to the short-cites (necessary to distinguish three different "Wu et al." sources). ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)