Talk:Durupınar site

message: The Turkish Government has recognized it as Noah's Ark and have a visitor center. Why has no one mentioned this? This article is obviously heavily biased.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.26.231 (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: It seems to me that the article is unduly personality-oriented - Fasold, Wyatt et al get all the attention at the expense of what's actually at the site. There are already articles about these individuals. How about re-doing this to concentrate on the site itself - what's visibly there, the claims and their history, the scientific investigations? PiCo 07:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An alternative approach 

message: The "who did what when" aspects of the article under the "Discovery" section are important, and necessarily speak of the Fasold, Wyatt et al.  Those should remain as is, and be added to as further work is conducted at this site.  The discussion of the Collins paper and some of the controversy between the views of varioius individuals/camps in the "Doubts" section might be moved to the Fasold article.  Firewall 06:18, 30 September 2006 (EST)
:The Durupinar article is quite literally an abridged version of the David Fasold article, with very little, if any, additional material. It realy does need to be re-thought. That said, I agre that a brief history of the discovery and promotion of tyhe site is still needed, and that the current length of the history section of this article is about right - but it needs to be less Fasold-centric, and it needs far more on what's actually at the site. I'll have a try later and you can se what you think. PiCo 04:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personalities inexorably linked

message: Added a new section, headed "Description", which simply sets out the geology of the ste in as neutral a manner as I can manage. The material regarding the iden tification of the site as the Ark is still there, but I had to rearrange some sentences from the existing introduction to allow the new section to make sense. Added an illustration to show what a syncline looks like. (Would be nice to haev some more miullustrations - one of a reconstruction of the Ark, one of Ron Wyatt...). Some more work could be done - I still feel the overall article is excessivly Fasold-centric. For discussion.PiCo 10:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The description section is a good idea, but the description needs to be accurate.  The description that is there after the last edit is taken from Collins' article which is full of assumptions (in private conversations with a Turkish geologist who has been on site many times, Collins' article in his words is, "not significant").  Collins never visited the Durupinar site and made his assumptions from Fasold's aerial photographs and comments from Fasold.  His analysis of materials is made from Fasold's undocumented uncataloged collection of rocks in cardboard boxes his garage.  The description as it stands comes across as fact, rather than conjecture (which it is).  Further, the inclusion of the syncline photo implies that it was taken at the Durupinar site  (I had to re-read it closely to see that this wasn't from the site), and is thus, misleading.  Ground penetration radar studies (by Fasold, Baumgardner, Wyatt) concentrated on the structure itself and not the surrounding area to either side (in order to establish that it is part of the existing geology and not transported there in the mud slide as some claim).  Also, bar holes dug to extract samples again only concentrated on the structure itself, and not the surroundings.  To make the claim that this is a doubly plunging syncline is just one of several assumptions and carries less authority than some others made by on-site geologists.  I think this section needs to be dropped until it can be made to reflect other views because in its present form, it is quite misleading.  Firewall 03:10, 1 October 2006 (EST)
Thanks. I haven't got time to do any more right now, and won't for a week or more, but I'll get back when in I can. In the meantime fel free to do whatever editing you think appropriate. PiCo 02:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section, "Description" 

message: Someone better versed on this should talk about the Turkish government's official position on the Durupınar site.  Mentioning the road sign, etc.
TuckerResearch 04:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Might someone... 

message: Although I don't accept that the Bible, Koran, Rig Veda, Elder Edda, Iliad or whatever are accurate historical accounts, I do accept that some elements in them probably derive from actual historical events, seen through the distorting lenses of tradition, religion, politics, out-dated understanding etc, and that there can be interest and value in investigating such possibilities.
Rather than the admittedly boat-resembling but natural Durupinar formation being Noah's Ark, might it be that the Noah's Ark story (in it's pre-biblical origins) was invented to explain the formation?
This is of course mere "Original Research" speculation on my part, but if the idea has occurred to me it must have occurred to others more qualified and might be documented and verifiable, and therefore worthy of inclusion in this article.  Has anyone come across such a published conjecture? 40.0.96.2 10:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're theory is plausible, but I haven't come across it. The consensus in biblical scholarship circles seems to be that the author of the Ark story lived in the 6th century BC or thereabouts, was Jewish, and thought it would be a good idea to take Babylonian myths and re-write them in a way that would show that Yahweh, and not Marduk, was top god. Bear in mind that back then myth wasn't myth, it was science: if the priests said that such-and-such was the way things happened, then by golly that was it. The Hebrews were exiles living in Babylon, trying to figure out (or at least their priests were trying to figure out) how it could possibly be that Yahweh, god of Judah (see Deuteronomy 32), had allowed Marduk, the god of Babylon, to destroy Jerusalem, his (Yahweh's) own holy city. And they found the answer: Yahweh was angry because the Hebrews had offended him, they had worshipped other gods, like Asherah and Baal. So here were the Marduk-myths, in which the gods of Babylon did various things, like create heaven and earth and send a flood to destroy mankind (Atrahasis. But they were wrong wrong wrong: Yahweh, not Marduk, was the one true god, and the flood was sent by Yahweh, not Marduk, and from Noah and his sons were all the nations of the earth descended, with (if you follow closely the genealogies in Genesis 12) the children of Israel as the senior branch of the human race, and the House of David as the senior branch even of the Hebrews (i.e., king David is the direct descendant, in the senior line, of Noah). So the ark story served a far more immediate purpose, to refute Babylonian myth and to establish the primacy of the Israelites and the House of David. (For further details on Hebrew erligion and such, google William Dever's book on Israelite religion - In think the title refers to Yahweh's wife - and Mark S. Smith, who is probably the current most quotable academic source on this subject. The blog called Higgaion is also good). PiCo 12:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, this theory was, for a short time, advocated by David Fasold when he doubted the Durupinar site was the ark.  He held that the ancients saw the boat shape and thought it was the ark of the old flood stories.  I read it in an article about the Plimer case in Australia, but can't track down a good citation right now.  TuckerResearch (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicken or Egg? 

message: The appearance of the Durupinar site is clearly boat-shaped as can be seen without interpretation in the original Turkish aerial photographs analyzed by Ilhan Durupinar for whom the site is named.  Recent interviews with Durupinar (who is still alive as of 2007) testify to the fact they he considered the shape to be boat like himself.  Pareidolia implies something like a Rorschach test image which is vague enough to be interpreted differently by various individuals.  The characteristic boat-shape of the Durupinar formation in the original aerial photos is undeniably "boat-shaped".  Seismic activity and weathering since its appearance in the late '50s has caused degradation of the eastern side, but its original identification as a "boat-shaped" object is still historically accurate.  Firewall (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct.  Even those who don't think it is the ark note its shape as boat-like.  See for instance : "Thirty-five years ago, Life magazine carried a story of an expedition sent to investigate the outline of a ship in a mud-flow near Dogubayazit in eastern Turkey."  (This is from a peer-reviewed journal: Lorence Gene Collins and David Franklin Fasold, “Bogus ‘Noah’s Ark’ From Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure,” Journal of Geosciences Education 44 (1996): 439-444.)  Or this from a creationist magazine which does not believe the site is the ark, : "That boat-shaped rock - is it Noah’s Ark?" (John D. Morris, "That boat-shaped rock - is it Noah’s Ark?" Creation 12, no. 4 (September 1990):16–19).  TuckerResearch (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation of Shape 

message: :Image:Fasold.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Fasold.jpg

message: In April 1998 he wrote a post on Usenet:
.   davidfasold     	
View profile
	 More options Apr 4 1998, 8:00 am
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: davidfas...@proaxis.com
Date: 1998/04/04
i just watched the tape through next to the computer/ noah's ark field
surveys, 1985-86 noah's ark or not,the  whole frequency genrartor  and metal
detector dispute between michelle and jm  is all there for everyone to see
michelle's argument is totally unjustified. there cn be no argument about it.
the tape itself is probably the worse one i ever produced, but i can still
make afew copies i'm not paying your -shipping. butthis item  is free  for
discussion. actually i don't know why we are even discussing this on alt.
ateism, ithought this waas talk orrigin. what subjects did you alk about
before? a note to michelle i agreewith you michelle that the story of
theworld wide  flood and the ark with the sandiego zoo aboard as esposed by
creationists like jm and wyatt is  a christian myth, but the real story of
ziusudra and his ark of reeds and domesticated animal and the local flood of
seven days, was real and proved by the 11 foot flood layer aof silt
didcovered by wooley at uUruk. the story has becomeembellished, plus the real
noah wasa sceaming pagan worshipping thesun god, so any argument between
youand jm is made moot by the fact that christians have embellished this
ocurance beyond belief. their noah's ark cannot exist dave fasol 
And a few days earlier:
 DF ANSWERS; #1THAT CRUDELY SHAPED BOAT SHAPE IS NOT CRUDELY SHAPED AT ALL,
IT'S PERFECTLY SHAPED AND 300 BY 49.88 CUBITS INCLUDING NINE RELATIONSHIPS TO
PHI. READ SAM WINDSOR'S NOAH'S ARK IT'S GEOMETRY. #2 IT'S NOT ON ARARAT, IT'S
17 MILES SOUTH. #3  WHAT DO OCEANIC IGNEOUS ROCKS HAVE TO DO WITH WHETHER IT
IS OR ISN'T THE ARK, EXCEPT MAKE JOHN MORRIS SOUND LIKE A GEOLOGIST INSTEAD
OF THE HEAD OF A PUBLISHING HOUSE THAT PUMPMS OUT SILLY LITTLE CHILDREN'S
BOOKS SHOWING NOAH LOADING DINOSAURS ABOARD AN ARK BARGE THAT WOULD BREAK UP
IN FAIR WEATHER.
#4 PROFESSOR IAN PLIMER, HEAD OF EARTH SCIENCES DEPARTMENT AT THE UNIVERSITY
OF MELBOURNE, AFTER WRITING AN ARTICLE IN THE SYDNEY WEEKEND EDITION SAYING
IT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ERRODED SYNCLINE, HAD TO TAKE IT ALL BACK.  A 100
YARDS AWAY FROM IT IN 1994, HE SAIDTO ME'WELL, I'M WRONG', BUT HE WOULDN'T
SAY IT ON CAMERA TO AUSTRALIA BROADCASTING COMPANY'S 'FOUR CORNERS' #5 AN
ORDINARY GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE? IT'S SO ORDINARY THAT FIVE GEOLOGISTS
CAN'TCOME TO A COMMON AGREEMENT ON WHAT IT IS, OR HOW IT GOT THERE.
BAYRAKTUTAN, COLLINS, PLIMER, MORRIS, AND SNELLING 
and
NOAH'S ARK OK , I WENT WILD WITH THIS, A BIT PREMATURE YOU MIGHT SAY, BUT
WHO WOULDN'T. IT IS 300 BY 50 CUBITS AND BOAT SHAPPED AND HAS TWELVE ANCHORS
IN THE AREA WITH ROPE HOLES.IT'D DECK SPACE AS DESCRIBED IN THE EPIC OF
GILGAMES IS ONE IKU (44,100 SQUARE FEET AND THE SAME FOR THE 129 DIVISIONS.
IT MATCHES THE 'BARQUE OF ZIUSUDRA', SHIP OF THE DELUGE, BUT IT WILL NEVER BE
THE NOAH'S ARK OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGINS AND THE BIBLE. CALMING DOWN, WE LOOK
AT IT AGAIN. NOW THE IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER HERE IS IF IT WAS EVIDENCE
THAT YOU BASED YOUR OPINION ON TO BEGIN WITH, THAT EVIDENCE  HAS TO GO AWAY
FOR YOU TO CHANGE YOUR OPINION. BAUMGARDNER CAN CHANGE HIS OPINION, BUT THOSE
13 LONGITUDINAL LINES AND NINE TRANSVERSE LINES, HAVEN'T GONE AWAY, SO UNLESS
A SYNCLINE EXPLAINS IT, AND IN THAT CASE, YOU HAVE THE ROCK THAT GOT INTO THE
BIBLE) YOU HAVETO DIG DEEPER , AND THIS SITE HASN'T BEEN DUG AT ALL.YET. I'VE
SPENT 13 YEARS OF MY LIFE TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT. PEOPLE WHO POP-OFF THAT
IT'S A SINCLINE HAVEN'T SEEN  IT. THE ARTICLE I WROTE WITH LARRY COLLINS
PRESUPPOSES IT'S A SYNCLINE AND HOW IT WOULD SOLVE THE RIDDLE, BUT FOUR OTHER
GELOGISTS SAY IT'S NOT A SYNCLINE. (IT'S NOT FOLDED ROCK BY THE WAY AND THERE
IS NO SHISTOSITY DOWN THE MIDDLE) IT'S JUST SOMETHING COVERED IN MUD.
PERSONALLY I HOPE IT IS LARRY'S SYNCLINE SO I CAN DIE IN PEACE. FROM THE MEAN
REMARKS I GET FROM SOME  CHRISTIANS, NOAH'S ARK DOESN'T DESERVE TO BE
DISCOVERED
THERE IS ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO AND IF ANYONE IS SERIOUS ABOUT THE REAL STORY
AND THE REAL NOAH'S ARK ENOUGH TO DISCUSS IT AFTER GETTING THESE OTHER ISSUES
OUT OF THEWAY, I'LL STAY, OTHEWISE, I'M MOVING ON '  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More from Fasold

message: I think it was consensus that Arzap Drogue Stones be merged with this article.  I did so and tweaked the article a bit as well, moving some things around.  I would like someone to find an image of the site that is fair use to stick at the top of the article.  TuckerResearch (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged Arzap drogue stones with this article 

message: Does someone have a fair use photo of the actual site?  TuckerResearch (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: As an old tugboat mate AND an ex cemetery worker, I'm qualified to state positively that the holes in the top of the "Drogue Stones " are too small for the weak organic rope of the ancients, to lift four to ten tons of dead weight and too close to the edge of the stone to be worn against by iron rings. 
Therefore, the stones are not anchors. 
I'd strongly suspect they are tombstones and the hole in the top is how you'd stand it up with a pole cut from a tree branch a bit like this >---- Sort of like a crutch. 
The stones are at least 10 feet tall if Fasold is 5'10" tall in the picture. Dave
(24.13.158.21 (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, first, the talk page isn't for hashing out theories, it is for suggestions on improvement to articles.  But as to the stones, I'd recommend checking out Fasold's book from your local library.  Fasold was in the merchant marine, if we're going to throw out past occupations as a form of authority, and he makes a case in his chapter on the stones that the hole is in an acceptable position.  And recall, as Fasold does, they are in fact hypothesized to be drogues, not anchors.  There is a distinct, and important, difference.  TuckerResearch (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I suppose, if you are going to believe in the possibility of the flood in the first place, having an understanding of the strength of materials doesn't rank high in importance. Recent research suggests they are stones that, during the late medieval period, local Armenian villagers have taken from an unidentified megalithic site (probably similar to Karahung) to be reused as gravestones.  Meowy 16:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of conjecture here from folks who have never investigated these stones in person... first the weight of the stones are immediately less when the weight of the displaced water is considered, second, if we are to take the Genesis as historical, then Tubal Cain was a worker of metals (iron).  To assume that weak organic rope was used by the ancients is just that:  an assumption... why could metal-reinforced cable have not been used?  And why are these holes cut on an upward radius as if not to chafe a cable or rope?  The various astronomical stones have their straight-cut holes focused on points of interest.  Not so with the drogue stones of the Arzap region.  Today they may indeed be in use as grave stones, but was that their original purpose?  And why are all of the adjacent grave stones at Arzap (Kazan) lacking holes?  There are a number of these stones that are not associated with the Arzap grave yard-- what about those?  Easy dismissive answers are usually wrong answers.  ⁃ Firewall 06:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Folks, please let's not indulge in original research and speculation on this page, it is not a forum. And Fasold is not a reliable source (off-topic, we were in some considerable email contact before he died). Let's stick to discussing sources, please. Dougweller (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

text: No, it shouldn't. (1)The article states that Fasold had sample which was analyzed.  The article also reads: "Volcanic rocks similar to the andesitic 'anchor stones' occur in the area surrounding Mt. Ararat (Pearce and others, 1990). The almost total absence of volcanic rocks in Mesopotamia (now Iraq) (Pearce and others, 1990; Aswad and Elias, 1988), where Noah's Ark is alleged to have been constructed, reasonably eliminate the possibility that the anchor stones were transported to Kazan by Noah's Ark. Because of the great weight of these stones, a nearby source is much more likely."  So, the authors conclude that the stones are local in origin.  (Read the whole article.  It's short.)  (2) I fixed the broken link.  So therefore, it is not unsubstantiated.  (Internet Archive is a wonderful thing.)  Best, TuckerResearch (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Drogue stones

message: These need to be cleared up to follow our guidelines at WP:EL. I've started by removing a commercial link and an early letter from David Fasold. Those of us who were around at the time of David's death know that he repudiated the idea it was Noah's Ark, certainly on Usenet and in my case by personal email correspondence. We need far fewer external links. Remember, ideally there should be no external links in most articles. See also our NPOV policy, where WP:UNDUE clearly states "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." Dougweller (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Dougweller, I don't disagree with your removal of these links, as I agree they were probably in excess.  However,  I too was "around at the time of David's death," I too trolled the Usenets, I too have "personal email correspondence" and I know that Fasold later retracted his repudiation of the site.  Thus, the two cited bits in the article from Fasold associates to that effect.  You seem to perpetually forget that.  So, while I agree that you removed the links properly, I think your reasoning is a tad flawed, and smacks a bit of a little "original research."  Both of the links you removed could have come under the commercial category, and, besides, the letter is better on the Fasold page.  (Let me say, too, as an aside, I disagree with your interpretation of WP:EL when you state that "ideally there should be no external links in most articles.")  I will say, we could probably stand to remove half a dozen more links from this page.  Otherwise, keep up the good work.  TuckerResearch (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Is Creation ex nihilo, a loosely edited fringe glossy magazine an appropriate source to bear the weight of characterising the opinions of most creationists? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight 

message: The second external link seems to be no good and looks like it should be removed.
This is the one I mean: http://www.specialtyinterests.net/the_remains_of_noahs_ark.html
User:Jackcrew 2 April 2016 (UTC)
:The external links have been now quite pruned. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: How can a source be considered reliable if it doesn't even have a listed author? At least I can't find it. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Snopes.  Snopes is generally considered reliable.  I don't see an author either, but it is a quite dismissive article about the site.  It's not a whacky creationist or similar self-published website about Noah's Ark.  You deleted all the articles as "self-published."  Snopes is not self-published.  The other external link I restored can be construed as "self-published," but to me it is fine collection of sources, images, etc. on the Durupinar site, presented fairly even-handedly.  (I.e., it is informational, just as an external link should be.)  I think it should stand for it's informational value.  The rest were explicitly POV and self-published, so I agreed with your removal of them. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it needs to be kept *because* it is "not a whacky creationist website". Authorship is important, assigning one's name to something means taking responsibility. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Not a whacky creationist website" is not my primary argument.  The fact that it is Snopes makes it a good external link.  Unless you're saying that all Snopes articles should be removed from Wikipedia.  Or that any website that doesn't list an author should be removed from Wikipedia.  (Are you abandoning your original contention that it is "self-published"?) TuckerResearch (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

text: PS - When I click "snopes" under the title, it takes me to David Mikkelson's page. Author? TuckerResearch (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that my edit summary wasn't complete. Snopes does not look reliable to me, no. I'm glad you found somebody who might the author. Can we agree that this is a discussion that is about a set of relatively unimportant edits? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Unimportant, perhaps.  (There are always more important issues on Wikipedia.)  But we have an issue to resolve: so let's try to come to a consensus.  No links?  One link?  (Keep the Snopes or keep the other?)  Or two link? TuckerResearch (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've lost interest in discussing this with you. Sorry. Do what ever you want with respect to the links. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Insultingly dismissive, but, okay, then.  I say stick with two.  Best, TuckerResearch (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I apologize. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Think nothing of it! (Sorry to pester.) TuckerResearch (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link that is no good 

message: Huh? TuckerResearch (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: How can a source be considered reliable if it doesn't even have a listed author? At least I can't find it. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Snopes.  Snopes is generally considered reliable.  I don't see an author either, but it is a quite dismissive article about the site.  It's not a whacky creationist or similar self-published website about Noah's Ark.  You deleted all the articles as "self-published."  Snopes is not self-published.  The other external link I restored can be construed as "self-published," but to me it is fine collection of sources, images, etc. on the Durupinar site, presented fairly even-handedly.  (I.e., it is informational, just as an external link should be.)  I think it should stand for it's informational value.  The rest were explicitly POV and self-published, so I agreed with your removal of them. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it needs to be kept *because* it is "not a whacky creationist website". Authorship is important, assigning one's name to something means taking responsibility. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Not a whacky creationist website" is not my primary argument.  The fact that it is Snopes makes it a good external link.  Unless you're saying that all Snopes articles should be removed from Wikipedia.  Or that any website that doesn't list an author should be removed from Wikipedia.  (Are you abandoning your original contention that it is "self-published"?) TuckerResearch (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

text: PS - When I click "snopes" under the title, it takes me to David Mikkelson's page. Author? TuckerResearch (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that my edit summary wasn't complete. Snopes does not look reliable to me, no. I'm glad you found somebody who might the author. Can we agree that this is a discussion that is about a set of relatively unimportant edits? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Unimportant, perhaps.  (There are always more important issues on Wikipedia.)  But we have an issue to resolve: so let's try to come to a consensus.  No links?  One link?  (Keep the Snopes or keep the other?)  Or two link? TuckerResearch (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've lost interest in discussing this with you. Sorry. Do what ever you want with respect to the links. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Insultingly dismissive, but, okay, then.  I say stick with two.  Best, TuckerResearch (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I apologize. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Think nothing of it! (Sorry to pester.) TuckerResearch (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: What's wrong with Snopes?