Talk:Arzap Drogue Stones

Disputed

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)

Regarding neutrality, remember the part of WP:NPOV about remaining neutral among the significant points of view? I fully agree that ideally the article, like all articles, should end up neutral enough to be a compromise acceptable to all the significant views out there, without appearing to take any sides. But the openly antagonistic nature of your comment above makes it hard to feel comfortable that you yourself are neutral as an editor. Whenever I make comments, I always go to great lengths to avoid bringing up my own personal opinions and guesses, no matter what the issue, since as an editor, they are supposedly irrelevant. In fact, ideally, no one will even know what my personal views or beliefs even are, because they are actually off topic. Opinions cited to reliable sources are what we are supposed to be looking for. On a disputed and polarized, polarizing topic like this, there will obviously be a range of opinions that can be cited. To sum up, what NPOV policy means is that it is up to Wikipedia to present the case, (all sides of it) but it certainly isn't up to Wikipedia to argue the case, and still less to render a verdict on it. Til Eulenspiegel 17:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Cuts

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, ISBN 0-14-044100-X; (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)

It seems OK now

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)

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)

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

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)

Revision

I agree, the article is too long and a bit arcane, but to gut the article because some "editor" doesn't believe in "Noah's Arc" (whatever that is!) is a bit too much. (I, for one, and not sure Noah's ark is in the Durupinar region or that these are "drogue stones," but this topic has interested me from boyhood.)

I have put back some of the relavant sections that were removed and added many references. I have cleaned up the article a bit and shortened it considerably from the version a few days ago. I think this is a happy medium, but please feel free to cut back at it a bit, change some verbiage, or ask for clarification or citations. (I think it rather rash to remove unsourced facts because you think they are original research, without asking for a citation first.) I have asked for a citation for one paragraph (about the etymology of the town where the stones are found) and I am sure it will be added by one of the many people who keep their eye on Noah's ark pages (I couldn't find the ref myself, though I recall seeing it somewhere).

I hope that this has helped. Any idea when the "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed" and "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards" can be removed?

Thanks,

TuckerResearch 05:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edits restored a lead section that is much more poorly worded and not in line with the MOS, and it also introduced some redundancy (in the section about the supposed functions of the stones) because now you have the old version together with my summary of it. I'll remove the pseudo-etymological passage again, though. As a linguist, I can tell you that this is just wild-eyed crackpottery, the certain hallmark of crank pseudoscience, of the type no serious scholar would even stoop to refute, so there's no way that could ever be made into an encyclopedic coverage.

Also, I'm concerned that few of the sources you introduced qualify as reliable, most of them seem to be just creationist websites of doubtful quality. Have these stones actually ever been discussed in real archaeology? Is there any reliable information at least about their archaeological age? Have they been noted anywhere, if not in research then at least in the mainstream media? If not, I'm still considering if it wouldn't be better to have the article deleted. No independent coverage outside the fringe "scholarship" of biblical archaeology means no notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: actually, this looks like a decent source. Still, not a peer-reviewed publication, but at least a serious academic writing. strike that, it actually is from a scientific journal, so hurrah, we've got something. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, edit it - but don't pontificate from your throne that all you disagree with is "crackpottery" and "pseudoscience" just because you have "Editor" after your username and you think "Noah's Arc" is a laughable propisition. Sorry, I just re-read the previous sentence, it is too harsh, but I am a tad inflamed. I have added works and articles, some creationist, yes. Please take a look at the David Fasold article. He was involved in a rather high-profile "Monkey Trial" case in Australia that was referenced in many reputable journals and news magazines. The Durupinar site and "drogue stones" this article talks about have been depictied in news shows like 20/20 and Good Morning America, and I have seen it on the History Channel. Sure, it is the History Channel, but this is Wikipedia, not Britannica. I am not writing my dissertation, I'm editing a general reference Wikipedia article about something someone might want to look up one day.

"Have these stones actually ever been discussed in real archaeology?" Not that I can find, though the Durupinar site it is associated with has been debunked in a negative fashion here:

Collins, Lorence Gene, and David Franklin Fasold. “Bogus ‘Noah’s Ark’ From Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure.” Journal of Geosciences Education 44 (1996): 439-444.

And yes, I'm sorry, the stones are mentioned in the Collins and Fasold article.

Have the stones been noted in the mainstream media? I just found an article from my files from Popular Mechanics. Mainstream enough? Here is the cite and the passage:

Fillon, Mike. “Science Solves the Ancient Mysteries of the Bible.” Popular Mechanics 173, no. 12 (December 1996): 39-43.

In this spirit, POPULAR MECHANICS reports these latest scientific explanations of some of the most awe-inspiring miracles of the Bible.

Noah And The Ark

Not too long ago, explorers claimed that they had found Noah's ark atop Mount Ararat in Turkey. Yet, two years ago, what some believe to be Noah's ark was found not on Mount Ararat but on a remote site about 20 miles away, near the border of Turkey and Iran. According to the American and Middle Eastern researchers who have been to the location, the remote site contains a buried, shiplike object, resting at an altitude of 7546 ft. Some 558 ft. long and 148 ft. wide, the object conforms almost exactly to the 300 x 50-cubit boat that, according to the Bible, God told Noah to build.

On the surrounding terrain, biblical archeologist Ron Wyatt has identified huge stones with holes carved at one end. Researchers believe that these are "drogue-stones," which in ancient times were dragged behind ships to stabilize them. Images returned by ground-penetrating radar indicate unusual levels of iron-oxide distribution, suggesting metal fittings. Salih Bayraktutan, head of geology at Turkey's Ataturk University, estimates the age of the "vessel" at more than 100,000 years. "It is a man-made structure and, for sure, it is Noah's ark," Bayraktutan said at the time of discovery.

David Fasold, an American ship-wreck specialist with no religious affiliation, has led the investigation. He says subsurface radar surveys of the site have yielded good results. The radar imagery at about 82 ft. down from the stern is so clear that Fasold could count the floorboards between the walls. Fasold believes the team has found the fossilized remains of the upper deck and that the original reed substructure has disappeared.

As might be expected, their findings have infuriated Christian ark-hunters who are convinced the ark is on Mount Ararat. Fasold has fanned the flames further by claiming the great flood is unrelated to the final resting place of the ark. "[It could have been] an astronomical event causing a tectonic upheaval or a tidal bore causing gravitational pull in the ocean waters that forced the boat into the mountains," he says. Some of the geophysicists and geologists on Fasold's team are waiting until excavation and carbon-dating are complete before they venture an opinion.

Lastly, I consider your statement: "No independent coverage outside the fringe "scholarship" of biblical archaeology means no notability" shows that you have a bugaboo about the Bible. In fact, all of biblical archaeology is not "fringe 'scholarship.'" Though I readily admit there is a lot of crap out there that could definitely be called "fringe," the field of biblical archaeolgy is scientificallt rigorous and has been around for quite a while. I recommend you read Wikipedia's article on the subject, Biblical archaeology, and pick up a copy of the Biblical Archaeology Review, which can be very hard on the Bible.

I don't mean this discussion to be abrasive or controntational, so please don't take it like that. I want to work to make this article better and acceptable.

TuckerResearch 06:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

redirect

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)

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)

I disagree with that proposal; this is a polarizing issue supported by a number of voices beside Fasold, and doing that may give the appearance like one school of thought, consisting of their opponents, might wish to sweep under the rug things they are perhaps uncomfortable with, and would rather not to get exposed. On the other hand, if it were universally agreed that this hypothesis is as ludicrous as you suggest, then there should be nothing for them to fear from having an article here explaining the evidence, and why there are differing points of view. Note what I have written above, about Wikipedia's role (and duty) being to present the case neutrally, but not to try it, nor to render a verdict. Til Eulenspiegel 15:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

Just for the record, the previous version of the article before my edits was apparently a complete copyvio lifted from [1]. The entire body of text, from the very first edits to this article, is thus tainted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is the other way around... were you able to date it, the wording at [2] was added AFTER the Wikipedia article was written because it was felt to be a good explanation. You can probably verify this with the "Wayback Machine". So if another web site like "ABOUT" copies Wikipedia materials after they appear on Wikipedia, does that make the Wikipedia article "copyvio"? Firewall 17:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

So, are you the author of that external page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Firewall 17:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Okay, thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing out an important point...

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)

This is entirely possible. However other writings (extraBiblical) do identify the starting point, but I don't think we can say that the named location(s) found in these other writings are the same as the final resting place or some distant place. What seems to be clear is that the Ark had no means of propulsion other than drifting with currents/winds.Firewall 17:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Durupinar site

I am not wholly against making this article a section of the Durupınar site article.

TuckerResearch (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Fasold's religion

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)

Merged with Durupınar site

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)