Talk:Durupinar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dear Wikipedians who wanted sections and references:

I have put some sections in and references where the one guy wanted them. I have removed the tags (is it appropriate for me to do that? I do not know. If it was inappropriate, I apologize and will learn my lesson.) As to the "spam" external link, I think it is just one the "Noah's Ark Adrift in Dark Waters" one, which is a link to where June Dawes sells the book. However, there is a brief description of the contents of the book, which I think is helpful and I have duly noted in the links section now. I hope that helps.

TuckerResearch 23:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An alternative approach

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)

[edit] Personalities inexorably linked

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)

[edit] New section, "Description"

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)

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)