Talk:Ron Wyatt

Premises Impact Conclusions
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)


 * Are you some Sockpuppet of Rktect? CUSH 16:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Untitled discussion
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)


 * 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)

Proposed Thread merge with Searches for Noah's Ark
I recommend against a merge. While Ron Wyatt's name is most widely known for his claims regarding the location of Noah's Ark, he was also associated with other claims of discovery of various biblical sites and artifacts, as a visit to his web site will show. http://www.wyattmuseum.com/mount-sinai.htm

Besides generating publicity, his contributions to "Arkology" were not significant. His greater significance is as a promoter who has helped to create the belief in certain religious circles that the Ark of Noah and other sites and artifacts have been found when in fact they have not. In that sense he is not unlike a minor P.T. Barnum and should have his own entry.

Emotive language
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)

Why are wiki-editors continually calling Wyatt a "swashbuckling personality." I knew him personally. He was quiet and reserved. Where is the documentation that states otherwise?

Good point I've removed it. (please sign your comments by clicking the button third from right) --Charlesknight 20:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

From the Wyatt Faq and Rebuttal ( http://www.webspawner.com/users/ronwyattfaq/index.html )-

IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS THAT RON WYATT HAD A PERMIT TO DIG AT THE GARDEN TOMB?

The answer is yes. A letter retrieved from http://www.Idolphin.org/wyatt1.html of the account from a disapointed Bernard Brandstatter, a man which I had corresponded with in e-mail and claimed that Wyatt invited him to the dig. Brandstater states:

"The next two weeks were exciting, and I can tell here only the essentials. We first got written permission from the Israeli authorities to pursue an exploration at the Tomb. Two of our team (I was one of them) accompanied Wyatt into the office of Dan Bahat, the official in charge of archeological activities in Jerusalem. I listened to the coversations, and could judge at once that the two men had met previously, and had already discussed the proposed probe into caves in the Garden Tomb. The permit was clearly legitimate; I watched Bahat sign it."

"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, moving a large pile of rubble and rock which had accumulated where Wyatt had probed earlier...."

Additionally a letter from the Garden Tomb director (May 22, 2000), Peter Wells, states:

"At the request of Mr. Dan Bahat he was given permission to access the caves via our property."

Scholar William Shea of the Biblical Research Institute, wrote to John Paige of Australia, [and this fact can be verified since Shea is still among the living], and in a letter that was signed by him and said the following:

"Yes, Ron Wyatt did have a permit from the department of antiquities to work there for several years. He also had permission from the Garden Tomb authority. I contacted Rudolph Cohen who at the time (1986) was supervisor for the Dept. of Antiquities to get Ron's permit extended. Cohen said that he had to set up a supervisory board of three qualified archaeologists."

And in a signed letter to Ron Wyatt Shea wrote on July 20, 1986:

Dear Ron,

"Have arrived back from Israel after conducting all of my business there in 3-4 days. I did get over to see Dan Bahat at the Rockefeller Museum but it was hard to catch him. They say there that he does not like to sit at a desk but prefers to be out in the field or doing something, but I finally did catch up with him after the thrid (sic) try. The results were not too encouraging for your project. Of the four points you wanted me to ask him about:"

Later in the letter he states:

"Bahat himself does not want you to do any more tunneling as he says this is not sound archaeologicial technique and if you found something it would not be demonstrated so in proper relations because of a lack of stratigraphic digging. So the way the site has to be approached according to his instructions is to dig a series of 5 meter squares up to the face of the cliff and inwards, that way you will have stratigraphic control over your findings."

There are also a number of known individuals who have worked with Ron Wyatt and the Israeli antiquities on a number of projects. They are: Eric Lembke of Paradise California, who told the author of this FAQ that an Israeli inspector checked up on them in one of their digs in the mid 90's.

Wikipedia editor/s, why is the derogative term "pseudo-archaeology" used? This connotes that there is no basis whatsoever to his claimed finds. Although I am not myself a professional archaeologist, I have read enough to know that they are often wrong; and often enough amateurs are correct in what they think they have found.

I would recommend using something more like an amateur archaeologist. Have you ever watched the videos on Ron Wyatt's (claimed) discoveries on YouTube? I have viewed a number of them in just the past week, and I could go point by point on them to tell you, or anyone, why I find his evidence to be compelling. This is true of what I've seen regarding the Noah's ark field work and analysis of evidence in Turkey, the evidence at supposed sites of Sodom and Gomorrah near the Dead Sea, to the estimated crossing of the Israelites, and pursuit by Pharaoh's army across the "Red Sea" (the portion now referred to as the Gulf of Aqaba).

While, indeed, many things seem to be "fantastic", that does not preclude the possibility that they are, nonetheless, real.

That Ron Wyatt was not a trained archaeologist, the way he conducted research as shown in his videos; and the many analyses he claims he had performed in the U.S., and their claimed results, though some things may appear to be anachronistic, again, does not mean that they are not true.

Re-write
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)

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?

First off, wikipedia is a fraud in reference to the Wyatt article in which case every rewrite is subject to some hidden editor who keeps reverting the article to what he wants it to be. The article is poorly organized and organized per the hidden editor's humanistic point of view. First off, the article starts off referring to the weakest, and unsubstantiated portion of Wyatt's claims, but doesn't go into any depth regarding the highly supported portions. I ask the question to this editor, "do you feel uneasy at being exposed as using Wiki in this manner?" Please, tell me why you don't allow the article to state that Wyatt's Mt Sinai site is supported by others? Why do you hide the fact that Joe Zias was merely a MUSEUM CARETAKER? ZIAS NEVER SIGNED PERMITS. Why don't you tell us why Zias is any authority on Wyatt? or why don't you tell us why you believe Zias was in on any loop in regard to Wyatt's work. Please, tell us what Zias' credentials are? I also wonder why you do not print the portion of the Garden Tomb letter which states that Dan Bahat asked the Garden Tomb permission for Ron Wyatt to dig there? Or why are you ignorant of the fact that William Shea worked with Dan Bahat and Ron Wyatt in the Garden Tomb?

jmnow@hotmail.com

Wikipeidia is run by volunteers who are supposed to adhere to the policy. But one of them (Boing! said Zebedee) keeps reverting changes to this article that comply with the Wiki policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.104.90 (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed this sentence:

"The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) have always been well aware of the excavations, and, while most of the permits were verbal only, between IAA and Ron Wyatt, the IAA have issued official permits to all WAR excavations since 2002."

Since the preceding paragraph quotes an offficial of the IAA saying that a qualification in archaeology is needed in order to excavate, and since Wyatt never had any qualificationS, and since so far as I can tell from the WAR website none of his followers do either, I'd like to see a citation for this claim before including it. PiCo 22:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who put this sentance in. I have been in the meetings with the IAA when they issued us (WAR) permits, so I know. It is not neccesary to have a degree in archaeology to excavate in Israel. You must have a qualified archaeologist work with you. And we do. Issued by IAA themselves. Tennessee R

Hi I think Wikipedia classes that as original research.

--Charlesknight 19:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted Tennessee R's para about the IAA giving verbal permits to WAR. Since Tennessee R is apparently a member oif WAR, I have doubts about his/her impartiality as a source. And I'm still faced with the IAA offical's statement that excavations require archaeological qualifications (which seems perfectly sound to me). So I'd like to see a citation more solid than has so far been offered. PiCo 23:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

He/she appears to be either Richard Rives (President of WAR) or one of the family.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=187&m=33#33

--Charlesknight 22:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"Members of Wyatt Archaeological Research claims: "The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) have always been well aware of the excavations, and, while most of the permits were verbal only between IAA and Ron Wyatt, the IAA have issued official permits to all WAR excavations since 2002"

An example to the credibility of the last statement is the official IAA archaeologist Yehiel Zelinger in his 2006 report on http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=327&mag_id=111 (August 2005, Permit No. A-4549)"

How's this?

That seems to be a confirmation that they permission for a dig in 2005?

--Charlesknight 20:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that they funded an organisation that had the permit. There's a difference.--Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the text a bit but if a claim of permits for 2002 is made - a source needs to be given. --Charlesknight 21:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And it needs to be clear who actually held the permit.--Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

unsigned comment
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)

Why does the Wiki editors, one of which is editor of the Talkorigins site (an anticreationist editor) continue to disallow the facft that Ekrem Akurgal, a famous archeologist supported Ron Wyatt's findings when this video clearly shows him supporting Wyatt's findings?: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UM8BuKm7CNI 99.170.65.102 (07:57, 21 April 2008)


 * 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)

Doug Weller is a talkorigin activist and should not be editing here. He claims that Akurgal thinks its a ship, meaning it may not be the Durupinar site. However, as ignorant and uninformed as Weller is, he failed to notice that in the following video Akurgal is looking at drawings of the Durupinar site and says that it's a boat. You can clearly see the drawings as it's zoomed in and it zooms out to show Akurgal looking at the draawings. Check out the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM8BuKm7CNI&annotation_id=annotation_464345&feature=iv

Thus it is directly proven that atheist Ekrem Akurgal, a professional archeologist to which Doug Weller is not, contradicts Wikipedia and it's activist editors. Editors who TOOK OUT the pro- Wyatt site links. This means the following information has been censored thus discrediting Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.63.232 (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Doug, Ekreme Akurgal signed a book, and wrote on the book, thanking Wyatt for the find. What other find could it be in reference to unless you are brain deficient, and why was the section on Pro and Anti sites deleted? You did this to prevent criticism, did you not? And this is academic? I don't think so. You're also involved with Talkorigins, thus prejudiced against Ron Wyatt. And therefore you have no business being on Wikipedia. Your actions are dishonest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.20.20 (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

Well, at least you have the confidence that Ron Wyatt did not succeed. The funniest thing is that he searched for the Ark on the wrong mountain. The mountain of the Flood story is Mount Judi and not Ararat, which was only named thusly some time after the 8th century. The biblical Ararat is Urartu anyways. Ron Wyatt was a fraud and an idiot. Cush (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The section on pro and anti sites was deleted. You could have put them back in but instead you gave a smart remark. PUT IT BACK IN. Additionally, Wyatt makes no claim to discovering any boat except Noah's Ark, the Durupinar site. Your claim that Dr.Akurgal is thanking Wyatt for the discovery of a random boat is insane. You are an extreme evolutionist who works with talkorigin an activist group against creationists means you shouldn't be editing on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.137.151.40 (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * No Cush, the IP. I've warned them. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Was Ron Wyatt a nurse-anaesthetist in Nashville in 1960?
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)

Why hasn't the wiki-Editors (one of which is also editor of the anti-creationist website Talkorigins.org) continued to put forth an unsubstantiated view that Ron Wyatt was a nurse-anesthetist in Nashville in 1960, even after this post was listed? And further, if Wiki cannot substantiate the fact with documentation that he was a nurse-anesthetist in 1960, why do they continue to allow that to go into print? Why is this article written like an anti-Wyatt tractate? 99.170.65.102 07:53, 21 April 2008

Notability
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)

Neutrality
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)


 * 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)

WHY DID THE EDITORS TAKE OUT THE LINKS TO THE PRO-WYATT SITES? I TAKE IT BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO CENSOR THE FACT THAT ATHEIST ARCHEOLOGIST EKREM AKURGAL SAID THE DURUPINAR FORMATION IS A BOAT. HENCE NOAH'S ARK. SEE THE LINK THAT ACTIVISTS ATHEISTS TOOK OUT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM8BuKm7CNI&annotation_id=annotation_464345&feature=iv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.63.232 (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.) Lady  of  Shalott  15:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Mount Sinai
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Please read wp:soap and wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

notability
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Contents
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)

This is ridiculous!
Any fool can see that this article is biased against Ron Wyatt in the extreme. The most obvious omission is the fact that the Turkish government has declared it to in fact be Noah's Ark on advice from Ataturk University archaeologists - that's why it is now "Noah's Ark National Park". All of the nay-sayers, who have never been to the site, want to discredit Ron Wyatt because of the implications to their anti-Bible/God world-view. Well, why don't you allow someone to add this positive reference?

Furthermore, the article is contradictory. It says the archaeologist Joe Zias of Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) has stated that "Ron Wyatt ... has never carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem. But it also says the Garden Tomb Association (London) asserts that Mr. Wyatt did in fact legally dig in the Garden tomb.  Well, which is it?  Doesn't this sloppiness prove just how disingenuous Wikipedia really is when it comes to the Bible?

-BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.34.1 (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. if the Turkish govt has declared it a fact, then you are welcome to add that to the article. However, you cannot simply claim that it is a fact, you can only state that the Turkish government has claimed it is a fact - and you must provide a notable and trustworthy source to back it up.


 * As for the article being biased against Mr Wyatt - everything appears to be properly sourced and does appear to reflect the general opinion of his claims, so if you wish to remove any of the negative opinions, you will need to show why the sources quoted are not of encyclopedic notability - see WP:NOTE and WP:NPOV.


 * And as for being contradictory, if two notable commentators have voiced contradictory claims, then that is exactly what this article should state. Wikipedia is here to record notable commentary, not to judge its accuracy - the contradiction comes from the authors, not from Wikipedia.


 * -- Boing!   said Zebedee  07:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Any fool can see that this article is doing Ron Wyatt a favor and giving him more publicity than he deserves. His pseudoarchaeology is not taken seriously by anybody except a handful religious fundamentalists. That is why there are no reliable secondary sources that would support Wyatt's "findings". His "research" is in the same nonsense-category as that of Erich von Däniken. CUSH 18:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This saying is certainly true: You can lead an atheist to evidence, but you can't make him believe it! See www.6000years.org/frame.php?page=noahs_ark and try to pass this off as a "natural" formation.  I think you only read detractor's sites which don't show any pictures (because they don't want you to see the Ark hulk up close).  If any, they only show distant pictures which could be mistaken for a natural formation.  Its when you really get up closer that you can't deny that its man-made.  Remarkably Cush, your user name is the name of one of Noah's 16 grandsons - a real person in history!

-BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.34.1 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK Mr. Truth Censor. I added "Pro-Ron Wyatt" websites and "Anti-Ron Wyatt" website link sections so that visitors could do further investigations of their own.  But I see that they have been removed.  So what's the story?  Other Wikipedia pages have these sections.  What are you afraid of?  That people will actually see these archeaological discoveries up close with their own eyes and believe them?  But you couldn't have that, could you Mr. Censor, as it isn't the official athiest party line.  Isn't the Web all about people having access to alternative information sources so as to bypass censors like you?  Come on now - stop being a Soviet style censor and let peaple make up their own minds about Ron Wyatt.  Or do you like places like China and Iran? (is that where you are from?).  I'm going to complain to the webmaster if you don't stop your censorship.  -bg  203.5.34.1 (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I simply suggested that separate sections for "Pro" and "Anti" links risk turning the article into a battleground - and the "anti" links are already there in the references. If an external link is notable, I think it should just go in the External links section as it is. (Oh, and have you heard of the concept of WP:AGF? You should perhaps read it and try to show some). -- Boing!   said Zebedee  06:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia makes it a battleground by not showing good faith in articles dealing with evolution/creation and young/old earth debates. The other pages don't come off as "waring". They are simply hyperlinks to help others find pages which they are free to click on or not.  But being a truth censor, I suppose you wouldn't want that.  I am just now finding out that all such articles are written with negative spin toward Creationism, and a positive spin toward evolution (BTW, evolution is a weak theory which is crumbling in the light of real scientific knowledge).  To summarise, here's an excerpt of an article I'm writing now.

"I recently checked out Wikipedia's page about Ron Wyatt. I was upset to find out how negative the article was.  It was totally one-sided.  Someone went out of their way to find negative references about Ron, without finding any positive references.  The two that were there were even contradictory to each other.  One claims Mr. Wyatt never legally excavated in Israel, while the other claimed he did.  When I pointed this out the the page's censor, he was quite alright with it.  So this means that references don't have to be true, they just must conform with the page censor's spin.  Then I tried adding sections for "Pro-Ron Wyatt" websites and "Anti-Ron Wyatt" website links.  I had noticed that some other Wikipedia pages had these sections, with the idea that people could do further investigations on their own.  But the censor promptly removed these too.

So then I decided to see what other creation-oriented pages were like. Not surprisingly, I found the same story. If you go to the Intelligent Design article, you will find that its obviously written by an "old earth" evolutionist. The definition given of Intelligent Design is written to sound as if it is non-science because it has a creation implication. Its the same story with Creation Science, and I suspect it will be the same with any Creation-oriented subject. The site is definitely run by evolutionists who strive to control their version of "truth".

It appears that Wikipedia is only good for non-political and non-religious (or non-controversial) subjects. Having an evolutionist write an article on Intelligent Design is like having a creationist write an article on evolution. Or can you imagine having a Chinese Communist party official write the article on the USA? Obviously, these sort of pages need to have two versions - one from each side of the argument. I advise readers to keep these things in mind when reading a Wikipedia article."

-bg 203.5.34.1 (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Wikipedia articles are not adding their own spin. Wikipedia isn't a primary source, or even a secondary source - it's a tertiary source, and so it only reflects the balance of notable secondary sources in the real world. The balance of notable sources is currently very much on the side of an old earth and evolution. Should that balance shift to favour young earth Creationism, and should the theory of Evolution 'crumble', Wikipedia will change to reflect the shift and the crumbling.


 * By the way, I've changed the "See also" section to "External links" - "See also" sections are for internal Wikipedia links.


 * -- Boing!   said Zebedee  07:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Zebedee, you just basically said there is a spin created by secondary sources. Wikipeidia is supposed to be an information site of accurate articles. And Ron Wyatt had permission from the officials of Isreal. So it seems this is a way to find ways to discredit him, when he just was doing an honest, careful excavation of the sites. By the way, he didn't even do any non-intrusive site work on the Durupınar site with out permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.104.187 (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the aim of Wikipedia is not to judge accuracy, but to present what reliable sources say, with references - and if different reliable sources say different things, then it is our responsibility to present those different things, with refereneces, and not to try to judge them. You should have a read of Verifiability and Identifying reliable sources. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok! Then give references for the info you keep reverting on the Ron Wyatt article. Or just leave it alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.99.236 (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no specific info that I specifically wish to keep, personally. Please see WP:BRD. We have a currently established version of the article, you have boldly made changes (the B). I thought those changes were not in keeping with WP:NPOV (you have basically tried to whitewash anything that casts doubt on the accuracy of Mr Wyatt's claims) so I reverted (the R). Now you must do the D, and discuss the changes you wish to make and try to gain consensus. So far you haven't even given us a word of explanation in the edit summaries, so please, tell us what it is, specifically, that you think is wrong with the current version of the article, and we can take it from there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have started a new section, "Recent changes", below, where I invite you to explain the changes you wish to make, and we can discuss them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes
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)
 * 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. 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)

You have also rephased one of those reverts. And how can you attempt to ban me from editting this article when I was removing irrelevent statements wich is not putting the article in a nuetral point of view? It is against wiki's policy: WP:NPOV. William —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.104.90 (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I titled a previously untitled discussion with a title that reflected the content of the discussion. Clearly, the title I selected was in complete concert with the opionion discusses and yet that is reverted back to "untitled discussion" claiming the title expressed my opinion? I have no opinion other then a title helps to shed light on the content of discussion. "untitled discussion" is a programmed defalt. The Title I provided accurately dipicted the discussion content. You tube is apparently correct regarding the overzealous Nazi guarding a pathetic wiki portrayal of this man Ron Wyatt. Wiki has generally provided neutral fact based information, not a deplorable assasination of a deceased mans character based entirely on subjective opinion. Pathetic, a Satanic Nazi Shill wants to be hall monitor of WIKI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.255.165 (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Not all Wyatt's Claimed Discoveries are Listed on the WAR website
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)
 * No, we need independent sources, we can't just use the WAR site. Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

Claimed discoveries
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)
 * 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)

Joe Zias 'claimed a BA in archaelogy' accusation
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)

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * sourcechecked=true; this was a situation where the archive link was put in as url=, so the bot fixed it.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  06:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

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

More sources
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)
 * User:Doug Weller, if you can find other sources than Wyatt's own YouTube channel, or whatever it was, to verify the laundry list of his "claimed discoveries", this article would make a giant leap forward. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM
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. Timothy Joseph Wood 12:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Oh yea. Totally fringe. I still don't like using "claimed" in a header, I'm just not sure how to get around it. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Deleted words about fundamentalists & evangelicals
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))

External links modified
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)

Reception
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * You have yet to convince a single person. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

I didn't say you were agreeing. I was thanking you for the point you made; which applies. Maineartists (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Done. There is a clear consensus for removing the tag. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 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&cent; 03:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
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)

Wikipedia standards for an article
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)

See this explanation and the links within it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Bluepenciltime (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Ron Wyatt was not an archaeologist
there is no way in which he was an archaeologist. That's a profession. Doug Weller talk 09:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * He could be an amateur one, and in many ways (a very amateur one), that is what he is. But what do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, "amateur" ANYTHING is not a profession. No one is claiming Ron was an archaeologist sans amateur.  Straw man 68.225.172.14 (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And of course he was a professional nurse anesthetist. That was his profession. Doug Weller  talk 07:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm an amateur brain surgeon.Achar Sva (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * According to definition- amateur or professional doesn't mean anything. A professional could find nothing significant while an amateur can find more than a professional.
 * Someone can be an amateur or professional brain surgeon and both could save or destroy lives. 50.40.230.104 (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * True, but one is still amateur, the other is still a qualified professional. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Literally the definition of archaeologist says he was. The definition isn't determined by certification or degree. Anyone excavating in their backyard can be an archaeologist by definition.
 * I'm a theologian that has more knowledge than someone with a d
 * doctorate of theol- that doesn't void my theology if it's fully supported by Scripture. It means I wasn't stupid enough to pay to go to college learning only the specifics they taught by those institutions and skipping over facts that even those institutions haven't yet figured out. I just don't have an expensive piece of paper to validate me. I have more knowledge.y. 50.40.230.104 (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

MAybe then we should call him an amateur archaeologist (or unqualified)? Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Again, what do reliably published sources say. And that means mainstream. Doug Weller  talk 18:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And if we can’t find them, we don’t use the word, just describe what he did. Doug Weller  talk 18:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

External Evidence
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)
 * Source? Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m sure they didn’t even if they claimed to. Background . Doug Weller  talk 18:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)