This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
I think that the 20thC section of the article would benefit from a reference to British archaeologist David Rohl's view on where Noah's ark, whether real or mythical, might have landed. He devotes 7 pages of his book 'Legend (The Genesis of Civilisation)' to the issue (pages 146 to 152). I consider it important to record his view that Mount Ararat is a relatively 'modern' misidentification. In addition, Rohl is a professional archaeologist - in contrast to many others whose views are reported in the article. The final sentence of his conclusion on page 152 of his book is: "The peak of Judi Dagh, bordering upon the Mesopotamian lowlands in the region later known as Assyria is, in fact the original traditional site of the ark's landing as stated by numerous early authorities." This seems to me to be an entirely unobjectionable statement. (P.S. I am not an American evangelistic fundamentalist!) Abutlwer (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In its current form, the view cannot remain in the article. The wording lacks NPOV. What evidence was presented and according to whom his argument is "convincing"? As another editor pointed out, you need a reliable and independent secondary source so that there can be an objective analysis of this view, if there are any out there. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you suggest? Rohl's book is not a 'popular' work. If I send you a PDF of the pages, will you be able to read them and suggest a suitable draft? Many thanks. Note that I have omitted 'convincing' from the talk above! Abutlwer (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abutlwer He is not a professional archaeologist at all, he only has a BA in Ancient History and Egyptology. And as I said in my edit summary, he is fringe. Noah is a myth, there was no Ark. Doug Wellertalk21:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You really should be using your account you know. It's cowardly to logout to comment. Or are you blocked? Rohl's claim to have the BA is probably correct, lying about it wouldn't work. You need to read Noah and Noah's Ark for the sources, I'm not doing your research for you. Doug Wellertalk09:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]