Talk:Ron Wyatt

message: I have studied under liberal and conservative archeologists and theologians.  Both groups have significantly contributed to Biblical archeology, as they deal with actual artifacts from the times they are researching.  I have truly valued their contributions.  However, their findings inevitably reflect their assumptions.  Liberals tend not to believe the supernatural accounts recorded in the Bible.  Conservatives argue in support of these events, but often look for naturalistic explanations.  What makes Ron Wyatt’s research unique is that he approached these events as if they were literally true.
For example, in Exodus 3:12 it reads, “And God said, ‘I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain.’”  The plain reading of the text and surrounding verses is that this incident took place in Midian, which is to the east of the Gulf of Aqaba.  And for all the reasons stated by Wyatt, Nuweiba is the most logical place for the crossing over to Midian to have taken place.
In the area of archeology, as with all fields of scientific study, our biases inevitably impact how we interpret facts and what we choose to believe.  Mainstream archeology will never respect Ron Wyatt’s research because they reject his premises. --Sapastor (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you some Sockpuppet of Rktect? CUSH 16:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premises Impact Conclusions 

message: Regardless of the accussations regarding qualifications, it ignores the real issue; what of the items found at the bottom of the red sea or in arabia as described here --> http://www.wyattarchaeology.com/red_sea.htm???  Why is it that his qualifications are always attacked and not what he finds? 
:The items claimed to have been found at the bottom of the Red Sea have never been seen - he refused to produce them. The other items also, with rare exceptions, have either never been seen, or never been handed over to scientific experts. This became his usual practice after he did allow scientific study of his Ark site (at Durupinar), and was told that it was a natural formation. PiCo 04:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, met Ron Wyatt.  He was a very humble man.  He even gave videos away to those who could not afford to buy them.  I find this wiki article to be biased to the extreme.  One would think that it was written by Carl Wieland who calls himself a Dr.  For a more honest investigation into Ron Wyatt's discoveries one should visit http://www.YECheadquarters.org  On this site you sill see the personal testimony of a PhD who himself investigated Ron Wyatt's Red Sea crossing site evidence and found it to be legitimate.  Also, one would have to be biased to the nth degree to not believe Ron Wyatt's Mount Sinai discovery to be valid.  Cheers and God bless...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoorfit (talk • contribs) 17:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled discussion 

message: In a wikipedia article I think it's the done thing to avoid emotive language such as "amazing!" I have tried to edit out such remarks. --Charlesknight 14:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazingly enough (but why should I be surprised?) there is a Wki article on Swashbuckler. The word apparently originates from boastful swordsmen who would go round making a racket by hitting their sheilds (bucklers) with their swords. It also says this: "Today the term "swashbuckler" is used to denote a particular type of character and is usually applied to fictional characters. A swashbuckler will display a strong sense of justice, an aptitude for and enjoyment of fighting, and calmness, class, and wit even during combat. The archetypical swashbuckler is a handsome young rapier-wielding European man from the 16th to the 18th century, though as "swashbuckler" is a character type, it is not confined to time or place." Doesn't sound like Ron!PiCo 07:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Emotive language

message: I've made a major re-write to make the article conform more closely to Wiki standards - informative, NPOV, and as brief as possible. I welcome input from other editors, but please explain any editing here in the discussion area. PiCo 01:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that they funded an organisation that had the permit.  There's a difference.--Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write 

message: Why do Wikieditors continue to censor the fact that famous archeologist Ekrem Akurgal supported Ron Wyatt's find of Noah's Ark? Or why edit out the fact that Bernard Brandstatter, a critic of Ron Wyatt admitted that Ron Wyatt had a permit? See http://www.ldolphin.org/wyatt1.html. Are the editor's humanists with an agenda?
:Please cite references for Ekrem Akurgal's support of Wyatt. As for Brandstatter, the web-page you link to is very interesting, but not conclusive proof that Wyatt had a permit to undertake an archeological dig. Brantstatter states that he saw "Dan Bahat, the official in charge of archaeological activities in Jerusalem", sign "a permit" to dig at the Garden Tomb. I'm sure Brandstatter is an honestreporter, but is he an accurate one? What exactly did Bahat sign? What makes me doubt Brandstatter's belief that it was a permit to carry out an archaeological excavation is the extreme casualness with which the "dig" was undertaken - Brandsatter goes on: "Our team proceeded to the Garden Tomb, whose custodians were expecting our arrival. Wyatt had negotiated cordially and successfully with them. With an assortment of gardening tools we set to work..." Gardening tools? No site-survey? No records of finds? Just arrive and start digging? This approach is simply not appropriate to genuine archaeology.
 
:Incidentally, I'm also fascinated by Brandstatter's analysis of Wyatt's personality - B. sees him as a man who genuinely unable to distinguish truth from fantasy, even when faced with physical evidence (in this case, the evidence that there was no opeing in the tunnel through which a hidden chamber could be seen), and unable to admit that he was wrong. Wyatt would make a fascinating subject for a movie. PiCo 04:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't use Youtube videos, for a start, and the Wyatt site doesn't claim that, it just says that Akurgal thinks it is a ship (not mentioning the ark), because he couldn't think of what else it could be.  I have no idea who you think ios a talkorigins editor, but that doesn't affect what sources can be used.Doug Weller (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the personal attacks, I must be doing something right. :-)  The article's history makes it clear that I didn't delete any section on pro and anti sites, and the fact that many years ago I posted to a newsgroup (which I haven't posted to for a long time) does not disqualify me from being an editor. Editor's beliefs or prejudices don't disqualify them from editing, only their actions can do that. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

text: See WP:NPA. As I've said above, I haven't posted in talk.origins in years, probably not since 2003, there are a couple of later posts but they were from sci.archaeology. You need to read WP:NPA, Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: me? well, it's rather my personal descriptive judgement that RW was an idiot, rather than an attack... CUSH 18:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No Cush, the IP. I've warned them. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsigned comment 

message: Ron Wyatt was not a nurse in Nashville in 1960. I knew him personally when I was at the seminary at Andrews University from 1960 to 1961. During this time Ron and his wife Mary were members of the Kalamazoo, Michigan SDA Church. While he may have later gone to Nashville, he WAS NOT there in 1960.
Howard Flynn
Senior Pastor, Eagle Rock SDA Church  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 13:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Ron Wyatt a nurse-anaesthetist in Nashville in 1960? 

message: We have a tag on the article asking that evidence of notability be provided. Apparently the criterion for notability is: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The external links section provides a number of independent (i.e., ant-Wyatt) secondary sources which have thought Wyatt notable enough to write about - and given the nature of ark-searching, organisations such as Answers in Genesis are about as reliable as you're likely to get. (There's also the comments from Joe Zias and the Garden Tomb peoiple, who obviously feel Wyatt is a pest, but a notable enough pest to warrent comment). Do these qualify as meeting the notability requirement? PiCo (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: I agree that Wyatt's work and claims are absolute nonsense, but this article seems to take the negative view to the extreme, so much so, that I think Shaye Cohen may have written this page! I'll try to change the tone of the page a bit. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 06:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article is as NPOV as you can get.  I disagree with the assertion that it is "the negative view to the extreme."  The article notes he has a following, notes that creationists disagree with him, and notes that mainstream scientists disagree with him.  Just because two out of three folks dispute his findings does not mean the article is negative, it means most folks think he's wrong. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I would presume it was removed because youtube is not generally considered an appropriate source. Do you have a reliable source that can be cited for the same information? (Also, please refrain from typing in all capital letters. It does not help your argument.) LadyofShalott 15:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I met Ron Wyatt in 1995.  He was a very humble man.  God chose this humble man to make these fantastic discoveries to confound  the "authorities".  For hundreds of years "professional" "accredited" archaeologists had been looking for Mount Sinai and God let this humble man with no formal training find it.  I only mention Ron's discovery of Mount Sinai because the video evidence is easily accessible to all.  His other discoveries are often discredited by saying "authorities deny his claims" etc.  I would think that one would do a little bit more research before writing such an article, that is unless they have an agenda.  For those who want to read about Ron Wyatt's disscoveries from a different viewpoint check out http://www.YECheadquarters.org   God bless....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoorfit (talk • contribs) 17:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I met him around the same time, he wore and Indiana Jones fedora and sold books with him posed as Indiana Jones on the cover. Humility was not the word that came to mind. Theatrical, charismatic and exuberant I believe describe him more acurately. He was quite the showman, with exotic tales of conquests, mysteries being revealed and secret knowledge given only to him. I think this article takes a negative tone because most of the notable experts in secular and religious archaeology unanimously disregard his findings as fraudulent and impossible to verify. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Ron Wyatt is a fraud.  His beliefs surrounding his fraudulent Ark of the Covenant experience are contested by those who were there.  Get real.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I don't think Ron was a fraud at all. The Bible says no matter what, the unbelievers will not believe, I can show you the tomb of Jesus and you'll still say it's fraud, but you rather believe in mother nature you also cannot see and believe in aliens which there has never been no evidence of aliens and which believing in that is none sense to me. We live in a life where we have a Creator God, you need to get real!! Jackson.christopher88 (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mount Sinai 

message: The article states that Wyatt is rejected even by young earth creationist crackpots. Yet it claims that he still has a "strongly motivated, if narrowly-based, following". Well, where is this following? I know we keep around articles on Gene Ray and P.N. Oak, but we would need some evidence of the individual's notability that goes beyond a google hit count.
:It would appear this article has been isolated. It discusses the Durupınar site without being aware of our Durupınar site article. I would argue that our Durupınar site and Searches for Noah's Ark articles are more than sufficient as platforms for mentioning Wyatt, and I can see no reason for a WP:BIO article on top of that. In my opinion, keeping around articles on people on the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe isn't so much biased in favour of the lunatic fringe but more often than not serves to ridicule the entire group. Just as the existence of the P.N. Oak article might be taken as ridiculing Hindutva pseudo-scholarship in general, the Ron Wyatt article would seem to ridicule Christian fundamentalist pseudo-scholarship, simply by pointing out just how far this sort of crackpottery can and has been taken. --dab (𒁳) 10:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability is established by the media coverage Ron Wyatt unfortunately received with his "work". And pointing out the lunatic fringe is one thing Wikipedia exists for. CUSH 10:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If this article were deleted, within a short period a Wyatt-was-right devotee would re-create it, but in far more adulatory form. Better to keep it and monitor it. PiCo (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: notability

message: Can we please have a section of his claims and identifications of biblical events with real history and how his claims were all debunked? CUSH 17:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contents 

message: I've removed them. WP:UNDUE, part of our NPOV policy, says "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) 08:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, a very useful Policy link - that'll come in very handy. -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Another good content guideline to consult regarding this issue is WP:EL. Useful reading for the IP who wants to include these links includes WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. This constant infantile name-calling and finger-pointing is very unlikely to lead to any desirable outcome. He's probably already gone the point of blockable incivility if anyone wants to pursue it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Some recent changes have been made, which I have reverted as I thought they were in breach of various policies, most notably WP:NPOV. If anyone wishes to reinstate those changes, we need some explanation of them and why they are valid, so I have started this section as an invitation for that explanation... -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP editor appears unwilling to discuss the proposed changes here, and continues to argue on my User Talk page instead, at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 7#Ron Wyatt article. If anyone is interested, please feel free to read over that. I have informed the IP editor that I will not discuss it further on my Talk page - all discussion should be here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

text: As I have explained in several places, titling it to neutrally reflect the question might have been acceptable, but retitling it to push your point of view as offered in your answer was most certainly not - and you were using a 5-year old question as an excuse to attack scientists for not following the bible, not for adding anything to a discussion of the Ron Wyatt article itself. Also, please pay close attention to Dougweller's warning about making personal attacks on other editors, as that is a surefire way to a quick block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Oh, by the way, "untitled discussion" is not a "programmed default" - it would have to have been specifically given that title by someone. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: The Claimed Discoveries section is loosely picked from Colin and Russell Standish's book, Holy Relics or Revelation. References not cited by Wyatt Archaeological Research today are poorly verifiable and should be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eharding (talk • contribs) 20:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we need independent sources, we can't just use the WAR site. Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  All sources regarding Ron Wyatt's claimed discoveries have the WAR newsletters or Ron or Mary Nell Wyatt's words as their ultimate origin. Eharding (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all Wyatt's Claimed Discoveries are Listed on the WAR website 

message: Per WP:CLAIM, 'Claimed' discoveries is a loaded word and itself POV. We should try to find some alternate wording that does not cast an automatically negative light on the section. How about "According to Wyatt"? Elizium23 (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs to be a noun phrase, and it needs to be clear that it's about the discoveries he claimed he made. "According to Wyatt"? doesn't give any clue what it's about - "According to Wyatt, tea is best with sugar"? I actually think "Claimed discoveries" is fine, and it's not POV as it reflects the balance of sourced academic opinion - he claimed them, but they're pretty much roundly rejected by academics. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claimed discoveries 

message: Joe Zias is quoted as follows
"a BA in archaeology which he does not possess despite his claims to the contrary."
For that accusation to stand, one should show where Ron Wyatt claimed a BA in archaelogy.  If there is no such source, it should be removed.  Students of these controversies should be well aware that special accusations from Zias need factual corroboration.  
If there is no evidence forthcoming, then we should simply remove the accusation.  Or add the following.
"however, there is no known documentation that Wyatt claimed a BA in archaeology"
There are other problems, galore, but I think we should look at this one, since it is a very specific factual claim, and cannot easily be evaded by trash-talking.
StevenAvery.ny (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe Zias 'claimed a BA in archaelogy' accusation 

message: http://www.itsrealandtrue3.blogspot.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.129.28 (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed, this is about as non-RS as a source can get.--Daffydavid (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added a Re-evaluation of Wyatt's Finds 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ron Wyatt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: sourcechecked=true; this was a situation where the archive link was put in as url=, so the bot fixed it.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 04:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The book Holy Relics Or Revelation: Examining The Claims Of Ron Wyatt which I might have. As well as a number of sources mentioning it. Maybe this by this guy. I probably won't have time to do any of this until Tuesday. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sources 

message: To whomever may care, there certainly seems to be a "claim" problem with this article, even so far as putting it in a section header. Please be mindful that no matter how much nonsense a person propagates, WP shouldn't take a stance on the issue, and shouldn't use wording that indicates it does. TimothyJosephWood 12:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The rest of the lead says "alleged" - sometimes a weasel word, but I don't know how to get around it. I think we should put alleged instead of claimed in the Claimed discoveries" section - we can't say "Discoveries" on its own, and they are alleged. This is WP:redflag fringe and we shouldn't try to disguise the fact. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yea. Totally fringe. I still don't like using "claimed" in a header, I'm just not sure how to get around it. TimothyJosephWood 14:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CLAIM]] 

message: I deleted statements about fundamentalists and evangelicals which had no source at all cited in support.  The last of these edits calling Wyatt a fellow evangelical were not supported by the citation given.  I don't know that it is worth the effort, but if someone wants to speak about evangelicals in this article, IMHO an effort needs to be made to establish what percent of evangelical or fundamental scholars (if any) endorsed Wyatt's claims.  Of course "fundamentalist" has degenerated into a slur word when it does not merely represent the POV of those in the early 20th century who were antagonists in the classical fundamentalist vs modernist controversy.  (PeacePeace (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted words about fundamentalists & evangelicals 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ron Wyatt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130519141312/http://wyattmuseum.com/mount-sinai-02.htm to http://wyattmuseum.com/mount-sinai-02.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://online.adventist.org/library/wyatt1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121523415800/http://www.forteantimes.com/features/profiles/261/ron_wyatt_gods_archaeologist.html to http://www.forteantimes.com/features/profiles/261/ron_wyatt_gods_archaeologist.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: One cannot allow the cherry-picked negative findings alone to stand within this section without also including what others who follow(ed) Wyatt and believe to be true even today. I am not an advocate of the subject; but do know that much of this is theological speculation (creationism) and not scientific even within the science world. For every quote presented in a negative light to dismiss Wyatt's claims even with his most recognized find: Durupınar site, Evangelical opinion does not weight against scientific findings. Even Wyatt's harshest critic: David Fasold who testified against Wyatt, claiming the site to be "BS" later stated in his life: "no matter what the experts said, there was too much going for the Durupınar site ... " and he remained convinced it was the fossilized remains of Noah's Ark. The section needs a rewrite to better reveal both sides of Wyatt's reception; which were / are positive and negative. Until then, the header tag should remain. This is merely to better WP and not promote any agenda toward or against the subject. If anything, Wyatt's discoveries can neither be proven nor dis-proven: much like all of present day Biblical archeology (amateur or professional); since much is based on speculation, personal opinion and / or theory. Maineartists (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So is there a public announcement by the unqualified David Fasold that he thought (in the end) that the Durupınar site was Noahs ark?Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Our article on Durupınar site give a good overview of the evidence. TLDR version: not the fossilized remains of Noah's Ark. The tag should be removed. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The tag should remain, because this section is not about whether the site is Noah's Ark or not but on the reception of Wyatt and the NPOV plain and simple. You are basing the entire section on one finding and those who disagree with Wyatt on that discovery. If you wish to re-title the section, please do so; but WP already has an article on Noah's Ark and the site. This section is on Wyatt's reception; which currently is not equal in weight to a NPOV. The tag should remain. The problem existing currently with this section is: it does not delve deeply enough into all Wyatt's discoveries and the reception on both sides: positive and negative. Either re-write and contribution to the section to better reflect the sum 100 discoveries of Wyatt and their "reception"; or re-title the section to what the content currently states: "Noah's Ark Site" and its negative reception. Maineartists (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You have yet to convince a single person. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't experienced you in a while, Guy Macon; it made me laugh to see that exact same tired line of defense being used. I'd forgotten. Still using "our", I see, too. Anyway: exactly, Slatersteven. Thank you. If WP allows both sides of the argument for the "unqualified Fasold" on their page for Durupınar site regarding Wyatt and the site; and presents sources to back such claims without contest, then it goes without saying that NPOV exists even with this discovery. The point of this section is: the sources are unreliable at best. Many claims are in need of citations; others are 404, and one that relies heavily is associated with the subject: WAR (Letter from Joe Zias). It needs a good scrub. I know the guy was a quack ... but I'm interested in bettering a WP article section; and this ain't it. IMHO Maineartists (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I was not agreeing with you, the claim (for example) that Fasold changed his mind (as far as I can find out) is post mortem, and as such is dubious at best.  BY the way, do we have Fasold's opinions on the Wyatt page? If not why are we discussing him?Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

text: So, we have one editor beating a dead horse and everyone else understanding the concept of WP:Weight. Remove the tag. --Daffydavid (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. There is a clear consensus for removing the tag. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on removing the tag, btw.  I'm old enough that I saw his movie on the Ark in the theater.  It isn't a matter of whether Noah's Ark was "true", it is about the fact that scientists of every persuasion (including creationists) not believing his many claims were true. Rather than fight about tags, the editor needs to provide solid sources that show a highly credible scientist who supports Ron's claims.  Then that can be worked into the article, just as we would any other content, per WP:weight.  Without sourcing, there is no basis for the tag other than to unjustifiably discredit the reliable sources given. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ron Wyatt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801163529/http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=327&mag_id=111 to http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=327&mag_id=111
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Article must not represent independent research, sources must be secondary and reliable, and content must be encyclopedic and written from neutral POV. This article relies significantly on Wyatt’s own website and other sources which don’t qualify as reliable secondary sources. Bluepenciltime (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia standards for an article 

message: Sometimes to find the truth, we have to look at external and circumstantial evidence. 
-- Ron dug in Jerusalem from 1979 to 1991
-- Ron claims to have found the Ark in January of 1982 in Jerusalem
-- Two prominent Rabbis (Shlomo Goren and Yehuda Getz) saw the Ark in 1982 at Warrens Gate in Jerusalem 64.53.113.2 (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m sure they didn’t even if they claimed to. Background . Doug Weller talk 18:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Evidence