Talk:David Fasold

Fair use rationale for Image:Fasold.jpg
Image:Fasold.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have replaced the offending photo with one that is free use.


 * TuckerResearch (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is NOT a coat rack article
See COATRACK#What_is_not_a_coatrack

What is not a coatrack

An article about an astronaut might mostly focus on his moon landing. A moon trip that took only tiny fraction of the astronaut's life takes up most of the article. But that does not make it a coatrack article. The event was a significant moment in the subject's life, and his main claim to notability. A reader is not misled by the focus on the moon trip.

An article with a title that can have several meanings, or a term that is used differently in different fields of study, is not a coatrack if it only covers one definition. In this case, the article should be properly framed by beginning with "In {the field of X} topic Y is..." or by using a specific title possibly using parenthetical disambiguation, to show the article's limited scope. When the article is properly framed this way, it is not necessary to expand the article to cover every possible usage for balance--that content can be added over time and either merged or split through normal editing.

Fasold has more to his life than Durupinar, but was part of the Plimer case

If you want to merge the articles put it on the talk page and allow a discussion, do not unilaterally do it yourself.

TuckerResearch (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

that's nonsense. So you argue Fasold is notable because he set up the Durupinar thing, and because he sued somebody over it? The Plimer case? Not something that made legal history it would appear. There is nothing here that is notable outside of the Durupinar site. And I frankly have my doubts about the notability of Durupinar itself. dab (𒁳) 20:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

See below. TuckerResearch (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Coat Rack article?
Thank you for allowing the article to stand. At least until we decide how to better edit it.

I think that Fasold's career does center around the Durupınar site, but he has more to it than that. If this was the sole judge of coat rack-dom, we'd have to similarly merge articles like that of the charlatan Ron Wyatt. Or, to make a point, we'd have to delete the article on Charlie Watts because his only claim to fame is that he is the drummer of the Rolling Stones.

That being said, I'd like to beef up the section on Fasold's life concerning the Plimer case (see Ian Plimer) as it had some popularity in Australia. Also, I wouldn't mind Arzap Drogue Stones being merged into the Durupınar site article.

I was rather incensed at first that User:Dbachmann would merge articles without a discussion. I'm glad he has decided against this course of action.

TuckerResearch (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I follow WP:BOLD: I did what I thought was the right course of action directly, but I avoid edit wars and resort to tagging instead upon being reverted. That's proper Wikipedia practice. I daresay "Fasold's career does center" around the site. I see no reason not to merge the article. All of the content here may be covered there. Same for Arzap Drogue Stones. Thanks, dab (𒁳) 20:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

See below. TuckerResearch (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability
Notability?

"The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject."

See David_Fasold.

TuckerResearch (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't call for deletion. I realize there are third party sources. The point is that they all concern the Durupinar site, hence: merge. --dab (𒁳) 20:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merging is tantamount to deletion. Is it not?  I think the Plimer case brings a separate notoriety and notability.  I did just realize that all my sources for the Plimer case are creationist in nature, when in fact there are numerous other mainstream sources.  (See for instance: ).  I should bring them into the article and beef up that section.


 * For the record, I think you are right about the John Baumgardner article and even the Arzap Drogue Stones article not being notable enough. This one, I think, does reach that threshold.


 * TuckerResearch (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * then cite evidence that Fasold meets WP:BIO. This is a biography article, and notability needs to be estabilshed for the person, not for content duplicated from another article. dab (𒁳) 21:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe I have. Until there is an article on the Plimer case, then Fasold deserves this.  Even with a Plimer case article, the fact he was involved in both the Durupinar site and the Plimer "ark" case is, I think, meritorious of an article.  He did write his own book, is cited in several others, and has a biography written about him.  I will concede that several of the cites and the biography are from "creationist/biblical sources," which I'm sure you do not consider reliable and/or noteworthy and/or respectable.  I really don't either, but I still think Fasold merits an article on Wikipedia, as some curious reader who comes across his name wouldn't get the full story at either a Noah's Ark page or an Ian Plimer page.


 * TuckerResearch (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

See below. TuckerResearch (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This section repeats?
This section repeats?

Over half of this article does NOT repeat the Durupınar site article.

TuckerResearch (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

but it coatracks about the Durupınar site. There isn't one sentence here that wouldn't be on topic there. Look, the site is notable because it was touted by Fasold, and Fasold is notable because he touted the site. That makes for one article in total, not two. Always assuming the entire thing shouldn't be turned into a minor section at Searches for Noah's Ark after all. --dab (𒁳) 21:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it coat racks for reasons posted above. We honestly disagree about that I presume.  Does Neil Armstrong coat rack Apollo?  On the Searches for Noah's Ark proposal, I have posted my reasons there.


 * TuckerResearch (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

See below, TuckerResearch (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Against a merger
I am against this article being merged with Durupinar. This article can be improved to make it more notable. Here is what I suggest.


 * Shorten the Durupinar stuff. This will placate some Wikipedians who claim it is just a repeat of that article, or a "coat rack."
 * Add stuff about the Plimer case in Australia. It made international headlines (I have articles from respected journals like Science that mention it).  Perhaps some Australian Wikipedian can write on the subject, brining in less creationist sources and more mainstream ones.  This case was called the Australian Scopes Trial.
 * Add stuff about Fasold's treks to Jabal al-Lawz - he is cited in a few books on this score.
 * Clean up the section surrounding his death.

I think this makes him notable enough for a stand-alone article. I am for merging the Arzap Drogue Stones article with the Durupinar site article, as they are linked. The Durupinar site article should definitely remain separate from any other ark article. It is scoffed at by creationists and mainstream scientists. This is a notability in its own.

TuckerResearch (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Keep Drupinar separate and merge it with the Drogue Stones, keep Fasold separate but beef it up.--Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is the best solution. I'm sure user Firewall will agree.
 * TuckerResearch (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See below. TuckerResearch (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Major revision
I have conducted a major revision of this article. I have thus removed the various tags in the article. I also hope and think this will mollify User:Dbachmann.

He suggested I take a look at Notability (people) (aka BIO and cite my sources accordingly. Here we go, to quote Notability (people):

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."




 * Charles Berlitz is independent of the subject, his book does not come down on any side of the issue, and, even though he is not reliable, he is well-known. He also includes an exclusive interview with Fasold on pages 157-161.




 * Blum's book is devoted to Jabal al-Lawz and contains two chapters detailing Fasold's and Ron Wyatt's illegal trek into Saudi Arabia. Blum is an advocate for making Jabal al-Lawz the Biblical Mt. Sinai, and has nothing to do with the Durupınar Noah's Ark site.  This proves it is not a coat rack article for Durupınar.  Blum can be considered, I believe, "reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."  He is a reporter.




 * This book discusses the debate between science and religion, and contains a few references to the Plimer case. Again, proving that someone might search for Fasold independent of the Durupınar site, it is not a coat rack article.  Coleman is, rather impeccably, "reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."




 * This book might not be independent of the subject, but it is a biography. And what biography can truly ever be independent of the subject?  However, it is a biography, showing that Fasold is "the subject of published secondary source material."




 * Fasold wrote a book that has been cited in other works, published in both the United States and the United Kingdom. Notable.




 * Kooky creationists, "who roll their eyes," devoted a chapter to Fasold and the Durupınar site.




 * Ian Wilson mentions both Fasold and his book The Ark of Noah. He exudes "reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."




 * Science and Nature are two respected, peer reviewed scientific journals that mentioned both Fasold and his involvement in the Plimer case in Australia, indicating Fasold's importance, especially in Australia, to the debate between science and religion.




 * Two newspaper articles concerning the Plimer case, which is important and separate from any Durupınar site coat rack.

These sources go to proving both notability and disabusing the notion that it is a mere coat rack article for the Durupınar site article. I also recently suggested certain revisions to make the article notable and better:


 * Shorten the Durupinar stuff. This will placate some Wikipedians who claim it is just a repeat of that article, or a "coat rack."


 * The "copying" from the Durupınar stuff has been chopped away, Fasold's personal opinions and travails are now recounted in more detail.


 * Add stuff about the Plimer case in Australia. It made international headlines (I have articles from respected journals like Science that mention it). Perhaps some Australian Wikipedian can write on the subject, brining in less creationist sources and more mainstream ones. This case was called the Australian Scopes Trial.


 * I did a little of this. I would like someone to add more to this, perhaps an Australian Wikipedian.  I did bring in various sources from respected journals that show its importance and notability.  Fasold's name is forever linked with this important Australian case.


 * Add stuff about Fasold's treks to Jabal al-Lawz - he is cited in a few books on this score.


 * Done, though this section of the article is very short. I would like it to be expanded.  But the addition of the Blum source is helpful towards proving notability (Fasold is the star of two chapters) and disproving its "Durupınar coat rack-iness."


 * Clean up the section surrounding his death.


 * Done. His final sentiments towards the ark from his friend's published biography of him (June Dawes) has been added.

To sum up, I believe that these revisions and added sources meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I hope those interested in this article agree.

TuckerResearch (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ok -- I still don't think he is notable enough to pass WP:BIO, but I'm not going to pursue this further since I recognize your good faith effort, and since, let's face it, Wikipedia has graver problems :) dab (𒁳) 17:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I still think it is a good standalone article.  Two things.  Thanks for being a rather cordial Wikipedian, I've encountered Wikipedians and Editors who wouldn't give an inch and were very biased.  Secondly, just for fun, which articles do you think have "graver problems"?
 * TuckerResearch (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * oh, they are legion. WP:FTN is a good place to start. Or skim my talk archives. One current hotspot on my radar is Kosovo: I think our having a good and neutral coverage of that is of rather greater priority than the question whether we should have an article dedicated to David Fasold. dab (𒁳) 18:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ouch, keeping the Kosovo article neutral has to be really fun. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Jomon article has a web page by an expert tearing it to shreds, it is something I mean to get to grips with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 21:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, this is an interesting article, but I wonder about a number of the sources that have been used on this page and whether they are reliable sources that we can use here. I have asked a question at the reliable sources noticeboard about them so that we can get the opinion of experienced editors.Slp1 (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the scanned letter. You can decide about the usenet posting.  As to the other three, you are correct, they are "written from a Christian fundamentalist perspective, with a creationist (and pro Ark finding) point to push."  But, aren't all "history" books "pushing" some agenda?  Just because these are odious "creationist" books, and might offend empiricist, scientific sensibilities doesn't mean they aren't on point and help the article.  I point you to Reliable_sources: "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution."  I think this applies here, and as they are buttressed by other sources I believe they are perfectly acceptable.  TuckerResearch (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)