Talk:Arzap Drogue Stones

message: This article presents the wild speculations of some Christian fundamentalist hobby "archaeologists" as if they were serious scholarship. Archaeological finds of Noah's Arc? Give me a break. This badly, badly needs cleanup. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amateur biblical archaeology of this type is, by its very definition, Fringe scholarship, and as such must not be given undue weight. There's nothing to be "neutral" about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are claiming an exemption to the NPOV policy then, I feel the tag you added to warn that the article is not neutral must remain indefinitely. Til Eulenspiegel 18:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE:  People continue to reference the Collins article because it appeared in an educational journal.  In fact, the Collins reference is itself bogus as he never studied the actual items and only worked with samples purported to have come from the stones via Fasold.  At best, much of the Collins article is conjecture and suspect as a credible reference.  This point is missed by those unfamiliar with the circumstances surrounding the article.  Fasold agreed to append his name, but did not co-author the text of the paper, and in personal communication, later regretted having done so.  His attempt to discredit his life's work (which would otherwise seem irrational) stemmed from his attempts to deal with copyright issues regarding his book, Roberts, and Plimer-- but that's more detail than is justified in this discussion area.Firewall (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: I'm taking a look at some of the things you cut out; it includes:
:Such stones are suggested in Babylonian accounts of the ark (ref) Epic of Gilgamesh, Penguin Books 1972, London, ; (e.g., "'The stone things have been smashed, their retaining ropes ... pulled out!")(/ref).
This is probably original synthesis since no source is given that has claimed a connection, only a cite to the Gilgamesh Epic itself, so pulling that was a good call, same goes for the second mention of the same thing later on.
:Specific references are made to anchor lines and stones associated with the Ark in other holy books and secular literature. The Quran in Sura Hud states that "In the name of Allah it will cast anchor." (ref)N.J. Dawood translation, Penguin Books Ltd., 1974(/ref)
Another original synthesis with only a quote to the Quran, not any source making the connection, so pulling that was another good call. 
:Of interest is the name of the location where the majority of these stones has been found: "Arzap" (former name for Kazan) which is very similar to "eretz tsab" in Hebrew and "arz zapt" (etmek) in Turkish, meaning in both languages to "seize the ground/earth".
No one even bothered to cite this, it appears to be Original research that was rightly removed.  The other parts you removed were also original research and original arguments that did not belong in this article.  So in short, you are doing a good job of pruning the OR. Til Eulenspiegel 18:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuts

message: Now it needs more references to the fringe theories to flesh out the story.  But nothing with out reliable sources, please!  --Rocksanddirt 18:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the main source (in jpg format, no less!) by Wyatt that describes the central features of the hypothesis, and it does mention Gilgamesh and the Quran, but I think  what the article currently has should be sufficient so as not to give undue weight, I will only add the words "and the Quran" following the mention of Gilgamesh. Til Eulenspiegel 18:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess it is Fasold's hypothesis, not Wyatt's, my bad. Til Eulenspiegel 18:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, I am surprised to see how much the peak of Mount Ararat towers over the whole area, judging from the green relief map on Fasold's jpg... The peak must be visible from just about the whole area for miles, even from Durupinar...!  Sorry for being off topic! Til Eulenspiegel 18:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It seems OK now 

message: this article seems to be about a non-issue of very dubitable notability. I suggest we just redirect it to Searches for Noah's Ark  and place a brief mention of these stones there. dab (𒁳) 10:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, go ahead. As we now have the Collins article, the situation is basically: somebody is claiming the Moon is made of green cheese; a scientist has patiently demonstrated why the Moon is not made of green cheese; both can be treated in three sentences. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: redirect

message: Just for the record, the previous version of the article before my edits was apparently a complete copyvio lifted from . The entire body of text, from the very first edits to this article, is thus tainted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, are you the author of that external page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, in this case I take back the copyvio charge - but then, if the stuff was first written here and then copied from here to the other site, the other site is clearly not a reliable source to be quoted in our article. Which means we'll need a lot of fixing of references to other, reliable, sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point about "circular references" and my external page should be removed HERE as a reference because it is redundant and validates nothing as a contributing source.  The references to the external page are now artifacts of earlier edits prior to the adoption of the current wording when there was more and different material contained on the external page.  The problem is solved by changing current references 1 and 3 to point to David Fasold's book rather than my external page.  I will make that edit now. Firewall 18:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: The Bible account does not specify what country Noah supposedly lived in before the flood, nor where the Ark would have been built; it only gives a geographic idea of where it says it ended up.  Other versions also do not specify the point of departure; only that of arrival.   
All I have seen are guesses as to where various theories locate Noah before the flood.  Geographic references in the Bible for the pre-flood parts are notoriously vague.  'Mesopotamia' is an assumption that the primary source never makes, but it is not the only possibility, nor is it the only suggestion.  In fact, there is nothing in the primary source to preclude a scenario having the Ark end up much in the same area where it started, and I have indeed heard of this suggestion. Til Eulenspiegel 16:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just pointing out an important point... 

message: I am not wholly against making this article a section of the Durupınar site article.
TuckerResearch (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing I don't get: Looking at the map of where these stones are located, following such a scenario as Fasold postulates, the huge peak of Ararat would have been easily visible from the same locations, long before that of Durupinar, which is much lower altitude.  So it's amazing to me that he assumes the stones automatically "go with" the Durupinar site when they are equally far away from Ararat anyway.  But I guess since he is the only source who talks about them, we don't have any other views that can be referenced. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You do know that Mt. Ararat is a volcano, don't you?  Was it at its present altitude at the time of the flood?-- or even extant at the time of the flood?  The limestone and much older Tenduruk Range upon which the Durupinar sediment (mud slide) is deposited, and the portion of the same range that rises near Arzap (Kazan) where the majority of the "drogue stones" are found, predate Ararat's current topology which is devoid of limestone deposits.  SO if you consider that Mt. Ararat was not necessarily of its present stature at the time, the locations of the escarpment above the Durupinar site and the topological high point associated with the Arzap drogue stones would indeed have been some of the more imposing structures in the region.  Firewall (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Durupinar site 

message: Firewall thinks he died a Roman Catholic. I'd like to know where that idea came from. He did call himself a born again pagan very shortly before he died, but I thought he was an atheist.--Dougweller (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fasold's religion

message: I think it was consensus that Arzap Drogue Stones be merged with Durupınar site.   I have done so and tweaked things a bit.  This is the best solution to keep the drogue stone information and keep the Durupınar site article.  It is an interesting and important site.
TuckerResearch (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged with Durupınar site