text:
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.  —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¢ 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)

title: Talk:Ron Wyatt


text:
Sunnyvale Independent School District

The Sunnyvale Independent School District is the school district in Sunnyvale, Texas, United States. The superintendent is Matt Kimball. The district is fairly small and has about 1,200 students.

History
The district was established on February 26, 1953 after the mergers of the schools of Hattersville, Long Creek, New Hope, and Tripp.

Prior to fall 2007, Sunnyvale did not operate a high school; Sunnyvale's students were zoned to Mesquite ISD, attending North Mesquite High School.

Although the entire district was located in one building, construction began on a new high school for students in grades 5-8. Construction had been completed for the 2006–2007 school year.

The residents of SISD approved a bond to build a high school. Sunnyvale High School was housed at the middle school campus prior to its campus's opening in the fall of 2009. As of August 24, 2009, the Sunnyvale High School opened its doors to students.

In 2009, the school district was rated "exemplary" by the Texas Education Agency.

In 2011, the town of Sunnyvale approved a $16.8 million bond election for the construction of a new elementary school to replace their current 50-year-old one. The bond election raised taxes on evaluations 7¢ per $100. The bond was approved and the school was completed in time for the 2012–2013 school year.

Schools

 * Sunnyvale High School
 * Sunnyvale Middle School
 * Sunnyvale Intermediate school
 * Sunnyvale Elementary School

Demographics
In 1997 96.1% of the students were non-Hispanic white. By 2016 the percentage declined to a point slightly above 50%, although the actual number of non-Hispanic white students had increased, contrasting with the white flight seen in other Dallas County school districts. In 2016 13.3% of the students were classified as economically disadvantaged, an increase from past figures.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Sunnyvale Independent School District


text: Category:World Heritage Sites in Cuba

title: Category:World Heritage Sites in Cuba


text:
User talk:Davinci18

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Image Tagging Image:JoeMallan.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:JoeMallan.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an arguement why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 20:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Re the photo. I obtained it from an internet site-

"http://trueblood4.tripod.com/id14.html"

i hope we can retain this image on Wikipedia. Thanks

title: User talk:Davinci18


text:
Danny Gans

Danny Davies Gans (October 25, 1956 – May 1, 2009) was an American singer, comedian and vocal impressionist.

Career
Gans was a performer on the Las Vegas Strip and the surrounding area, where he was billed as "The Man of Many Voices." He had been named Las Vegas Entertainer of the Year and his production had also been awarded Show of the Year for 10 straight years from 1998 to 2008. Prior to entering show business, Gans was a professional baseball player. He was drafted by the Chicago White Sox after being named an All-America at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo where he was a Physical Education major. It was at Cal Poly that he met his wife, Julie.

Later, he held a small role as a third baseman in the romantic comedy Bull Durham (1988). After an injury ended his sporting career—a player's spikes tore his Achilles tendon while he was fielding a ground ball—Gans turned to the entertainment industry. Gans began his career on the road, performing mostly at private corporate functions. In 1992, he played Dean Martin in the CBS miniseries Sinatra. In 1995, he moved to Broadway to perform a one-man show, but later decided to move to Las Vegas to reduce time away from his family, who lived in Los Angeles.

Gans started his Las Vegas stay at the Stratosphere Hotel in 1996. His show there was successful, and he moved over to the Rio in 1998. In 2000, Gans' show moved again, this time to The Mirage, where the Danny Gans Theatre was built for him. In February 2009, Gans changed venues again and performed at Encore Las Vegas, the sister property to Wynn Las Vegas. The marquee on Las Vegas Strip bearing his image, at one time, held the record as the largest freestanding marquee in the world. His first record album, produced by Michael Omartian, was cross-marketed in both the pop and Christian music genres and, although Gans never charted, it sold in both mainstream and Christian music outlets. At the time of his death he was grossing $18 million a year. He was also known for his vintage car collection.

Death
Gans died on May 1, 2009, at his home in Henderson, Nevada, shortly after his wife called paramedics saying he was having difficulty breathing. The cause of death was a drug toxicity caused by the combination of hydromorphone (an opiate, commonly marketed under the name Dilaudid) and a pre-existing heart condition. It was determined that his death was caused by an adverse drug reaction, and was not drug abuse-related.

Gans had three children, Amy, Andrew and Emily. He is interred at Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Glendale, California.

Film and television
Gans had been noted many times for his role in Bull Durham, although his role in the movie was ultimately downsized. He used this role as an addition to his resume, even going on Roy Firestone's show and promoting the role while holding a picture of himself from the movie to prove that he was, in fact, in it.

Gans played Roger in the television series Silk Stalkings for 12 episodes (1991–92), played Scott Babylon in the sitcom Duet (1987–89), and reprised his role in the spin-off Open House (1989–90). In the Roseanne episode "Vegas, Vegas" (1991), he played a Wayne Newton impersonator.

He had an uncredited cameo as himself in the sci-fi adventure movie Race to Witch Mountain (2009). Gans was mentioned several times, but did not appear, in an episode of the sitcom Gary Unmarried (which aired shortly after his death, on May 6, 2009). When aired, the episode was accompanied by an "In Memory Of" end-credit dedicated to Gans.

title: Danny Gans


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop

Purpose of the workshop

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Expected standards of behavior
 * You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
 * Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior
 * Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
 * Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
 * Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
 * Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Template
1)

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
2)

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
3)

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
1)

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
2)

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
3)

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
4)

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

 * Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:


text:
Talk:WDC 65C02

Title change: "65C02 Microprocessor" --> "WDC 65C02"
Why the change? In short: because, where belongs to the originating company, is the de facto standard for microprocessor articles in WKP. Note that this also applies to processors which are/have been second-sourced (i.e., manufactured by one or more companies other than the originating one). --Wernher 14:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a wrongheaded decision. The 65C02 is a family of related designs: any suggestion they are licensed derivates of WDC's particular design should be supported by citations. The presumption should otherwise be that the designs were independent implementations in CMOS of the 6502 instruction set, with enhancements. This article may mention WDC's specific choices but should not elevate them as definitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.64.214 (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

 * This is an error. There was a 65C02 (and in fact a whole 65Cxx family) from MOS Technology (a.k.a. Commodore Semiconductor Group) in 1982, as shown in the MOS Technology 1982-1983 Data Catalog, a scaned copy of which is available from bitsavers.org: http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/mosTechnology/_dataBooks/1982_MOS_Technology_Data_Catalog.pdf.  WDC was founded in 1978, according to their website, so I can't deduce which is the case: that MOS/Commodore licensed the 65C02 from WDC, vice versa, or the two companies developed CMOS implementations of the 6502 independently.  Regardless, the article excludes the Commodore product without any cited reference to support the only possible justification for this, that the Commodore 65C02 was a licensed second-source version of the WDC 65C02 (which later developed into the current 65C02S).  The article title needs to be changed back, or else a new article needs to be created with the title MOS Technology 65C02.  I don't think the separate articles are warranted.  173.59.13.98 (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Update: I have examined the MOS Technology 65C02 (MPS65C02) datasheet from the 1982-1983 Data Catalog and closely compared it with the datasheet for the NMOS 6502 in the same book, and I found the two to be nearly identical, except for power supply current and clock speeds. According to these datasheet The MOS Technology 65C02 has the exact same instruction set, pinout, feature list, and electrical characteristics as the NMOS 6502: it is practically identical except that it is implemented in CMOS instead of NMOS, so it uses much less power but is lmited to 1 MHz, whereas the NMOS version (as of 1982) was available in 1 MHz (no suffix), 2 MHz ("A" suffix), and 3 MHz ("B" suffix) versions.  This MPS65C02 is not covered at all by this article, nor am I aware of any other article that covers it.  For historical and legacy support purposes, it needs to be described on Wikipedia. 173.59.13.98 (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Dead link
The datasheet's link on 65xx.com seems to be dead. --Thomas, 4:02pm, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Fixed. --StuartBrady 20:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

G65SC02
I've checked the datasheet for the G65SC02 and it seems the TSB and TRB instructions were not removed, and that only RMB, SMB, BBR and BBS were removed. I've updated the article accordingly. --StuartBrady 20:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Power consumption
The power consumption is listed at 150uA, which I presume is supposed to mean 150 microamps. However, following the link for uA directs to nanoamps. A nanoamp would be written as nA, not uA. Shall I assume it's supposed to be microamps? What is the source on this anyway? Mofoburrell (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Nanoamps (i.e. less than one microamp) would not be reasonably plausible for any microprocessor, even the most efficient CMOS design implementing the simplest architecture. 173.59.13.98 (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

merge
I suggest merging the stubby article W65C02S into the WDC 65C02 article. The "W65C02S" is a kind of "WDC 65C02", and I think the similarities and minor differences between all the kinds of "WDC 65C02" can easily be covered in this one article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.124.33 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Apple II frequencies are wrong
The given frequencies for the Apple II models are slightly incorrect. They don't run at 1.023 MHz but at 1.020484... MHz, i.e. 65 machine cycles per 228 cycles of the NTSC color carrier frequency. I'd correct it myself if the article wasn't locked. -- 77.187.133.27 (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this microprocessor still in use???
Is this microprocessor still in use? I am not technically minded enough to know, but I ran into this circuit from this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count

It shows that it has had an updated manufacturing process in 2009 using the 0.22 µm process. Thus it appears that it is still being manufactured - but the "Notable uses" section only lists ancient products such as the Apple II. Does anybody know what this is still being used for? And is it still used in large quantities? Thanks in advance to anybody who knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Section on New addressing modes
This section is very inaccurate and confusing.

The first paragraph starts with "variation on indirect addr. mode" but describes a direct addressing mode. Furthermore, the (zp,y) mode did not exist. I suppose the author meant "LDA $12,Y". But then the statement "Unfortunately, this was the only way to load data from the ZP" would be wrong, since most ALU instructions worked with ZP and Absolute addressing modes.

The 3rd paragraph is also incorrect, as the original 6502 also included a (zp),y postindexed mode. In fact it was the only indirect addressing mode that was used regularly on the C64.

The 4th paragraph is also incorrect. The JMP instruction was updated with (absolute,X). The JSR instruction was not affected. There was no JMP or JSR (zp,x) on the original 6502.

All these comments can easily be verified with any copy of the original 6502 and 65C02 datasheets (widely available on the internet).

I suggest a complete rewrite.

DiederikH (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

 * There are a few more issues regarding 6502 instructions:
 * The 6502 has load and store instructions using zero page for the X ($a6/$86) and Y ($a4/$84) registers, so the claim of using an index register to get at a zero page address is simply wrong.
 * The terms "preindexed" and "postindexed" sound alien to me, "indexed indirect": `LDA($10,X)` and "indirect indexed": `LDA ($10),Y` are what most datasheets use, as well as the C64 PRG.
 * The example "A program can LDY #$10;JSR ($12),Y to call "routine number 10", is very confusing. Unless one manages to construct a table of words where the MSB of the routine called is the LSB of the next routine and so forth, this is a bad example. (Either do LDA routine_num; ASL; TAY, or come up with a better example, or delete it (my preference). Also, the "This new mode not only allowed for a larger table, but also meant it could be placed in ROM." doesn't make a lick of sense, ROM vectors have been fine since the PET and CBM-II.

 * Hopefully someone who's a native English speaker can fix this. I can help with the details.

 * Compyx (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

 * I did a complete rewrite, and it at least passes Compyx muster. Somebody else can figure out the proper closed/resolved/archived/whatever wikipedia process.
 * 70.166.159.104 (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate historical reference in intro
Development began in 1981[a] when it was known as the 65802.

That is untrue.

Evidently, whomever wrote that into the article completely misread the reference source. That source did not say the 65C02 was named the 65802. The 65C802 designation was given to the 65C816 when packaged for use in 65(C)02 circuits. The 65C02 was never referred to as "65802" at any point in its development.

The 65C02 design commenced shortly after Bill Mensch founded the Western Design Center in 1978—the 'C02 was WDC's first product. Mensch is the sole patent-holder on the 65C02 design, with Rockwell and others acting as second-sources. Functional product was available through distribution in late 1982—I bought one at the time to try out in a Commodore 8024 computer—and Apple started purchasing 65C02s in 1984 to power the Apple IIC and later the IIE. As soon as the 65C02 had gone into production, Mensch (and his sister) commenced design work on the 65C816.

Although the commonly-repeated story is one where Apple wanted the 65C816 and that is why it was developed, the fact of the matter is Mensch already had the 65C816's design worked out and realized he needed a (relatively) high-volume application for the processor in order to proceed. It so happened that Apple was looking to develop a "poor-man's MacIntosh" and when Mensch learned about their plan he pitched the 65C816. Steve Wozniak revealed in January 1985 that they were looking at the 65816. The result was the Apple IIGS, which went into production in 1986.

The 65C802 came later on, after WDC had amortized the costs of developing the 65C816. The 65C802 is essentially a 65C816 die in a package that is pin-compatible with the 65C02. No bank address is emitted by the 65C802 and it lacks the ABORT input, as well as the VDA and VPA outputs of the '816—the latter two are replaced by SYNC. Also, the Rockwell RMB, SMB, BBR and BBS instructions are missing in the 65C802 (and in the 65C816).

Many Apple IIE owners upgraded their machines with the 65C02 or 65C802. IIC owners often removed the 65C02 and replaced it with a 65C816.

The 65C02 core is currently used in embedded applications, including heart pacers and defibrillators. Estimated usage of the 65C02 in discrete and ASIC forms is over 100 million units per year.

216.152.18.132 (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 * The wording above is unclear - are you claiming that design on the chip started in 1978, that samples were available in 1981, or both? Do you have documentary evidence for these statements?
 * We do have cited documentary evidence that the chip became available in 1983, and that is also the date it appears in the IIc and various other products. I cannot find any documentary evidence of it existing prior to that date. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Further to the 1983 date, this is the first known advertizement for the 65C02: here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Yep! My wording was a little ambiguous.  Sorry!

 * In conversations with David Gray at WDC, he once mentioned that Bill Mensch started work on the 65C02 design c. 1980. The point in time when the masks were released to produce wafers is unclear, but supposedly happened sometime in 1982.  My above date in obtaining one to retrofit the Commodore machine was a typo that I didn't notice when I made my post.
 * 216.152.18.132 (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Computers -- Atari 400/800/600XL/800XL/1200/XEGS missing -- how did THAT happen?
Atari was the first, for many years the ONLY and by far the LARGEST (by number of units sold) user of 65C02 processors, dwarfing the combined sales of all the other systems mentioned here COMBINED.

Abkedefghi (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @Abkedefghi Can you post some sales figures to substantiate that statement, without the SHOUTING please. ToaneeM (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The Atari machines did not use the 65C02, they used the 6502C. That is a slightly modified version of the original MOS 6502, and has nothing to do with the topic of this article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Low power modes
This section needs some attention. There is at least one incorrect statement in it concerning <tt>STP</tt>, and the description of how the <tt>WAI</tt> instruction behaves following an <tt>SEI</tt> instruction is not particularly understandable. It might be worth looking at the 6502 interrupts article (can't recall the exact title), which has some discussion about <tt>STP</tt> and <tt>WAI</tt>.

216.152.18.132 (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sales "in the 100's of millions" out of date
The 6502 article talks about the 65C02 in its opening text. It claims that the 65C02/65xx family continues to be widely used, with "with estimated production volumes in the hundreds of millions".

The linked reference is to the Western Design Centre website. The actual paragraph there says: "...Annual volumes in the hundreds (100's) of millions of units keep adding in a significant way to the estimated shipped volumes of five (5) to ten (10) billion units. With 200MHz+ 8-bit W65C02S and 100MHz+ 8/16-bit W65C816S processors coming on line in ASIC and FPGA forms, we see these annual volumes continuing for a long, long time. The 65xx brand is probably the only processor family that has remained loyal to its ISA over the last 33 years."

The last 33 years since 1975, start of the '65xx brand', means this was written in 2008, making it 14 years out of date.

That website redirects you to a newer WDC website, which contains a revised statement: "Through the last 30+ years as one of the most popular microprocessor architectures of all time the 65xx brand is estimated to have over six billion embedded 65xx processors shipped and is growing by hundreds of millions of units per year, provided by WDC and its licensees."

The relevant text on that page looks like a rehash of the original site's text. The '30+ years' looks like a rehash of the '33 years', aimed to make it timeless so they don't have to worry about changing the website. So it's also not proven to be current and is likely out of date.

All in all, there needs to be better evidence that the 65C02/65xx family sells these quantities per annum, either in parts or as licenced IP. Or the statement's wrong and should be removed - not just removing the quantities but also the claim of popularity and any volumes. ToaneeM (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Indexing bug
The article mentions a very specific bug that was introduced into the 65C02 that wasn't present in the original NMOS version. Does that bug remain in samples manufactured today or was it fixed at some point? I've added a Citation Needed tag because if the bug persists it will be documented somewhere. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:WDC 65C02


text:
Talk:Alejandro González Iñárritu

Untitled
Look at IMDB bio re poss copyright issue Paul foord 14:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Article image
I've received notification that the main image on this article is likely to be removed under the   rationale, which states that "it illustrates a subject for which a free image could reasonably be found or created".

If anyone has (or can source) a suitable free image of Alejandro González Iñárritu, that could replace the one currently used, please upload it and replace the existing image. Alternatively, if anyone wishes to contest the decision to remove this picture, please edit, add the   template and provide justification on that page as to why it should be retained as a fair use image. Gram 11:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What part of "Babel" takes place in Tunisia? Also, I only count three main stories followed in the movie, not four.

Academy Award?
"He has won many awards including: Academy Award,..."

Has he actually won an Academy Award, or merely been nominated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.108.162 (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Is there any need for Death Trilogy to have its own page? It doesn't do anything other than list the films, so not sure it's even notable as no discussion is made. Would have though this better served as a small section on the director's page. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've merged the information from Death Trilogy. Didn't really think that it warranted its own section based on the material from that page, so have just put it under filmography for now.  Does anyone want to expand on this or incorporate it in the main article?  Rob Sinden (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Name Pronunciation
His name, according to Mexican pronunciation, is said in seseo not ceceo. Ceceo is phenomenon found in a few dialects of southern Spain in which the historical phonemes /s/ and /θ/ are both realized as [θ]. Although a minority pronunciation in Spain, virtually all speakers in Hispanic America are seseantes, and seseo is considered standard in all varieties of Latin American Spanish. Seseo is the merger in the opposite direction: the original phonemes /s/ and /θ/ are both pronounced as [s]. There's always a lot of confusion over this, usually who have learned Spanish in Europe, where ceceo is often taught. This form of Spanish, or Castellano, is very limited to certain parts of Spain. No Spanish speaking person pronounces their name like that unless they were born and/or were raised/lived in those areas of Spain. Please do not simply change the pronunciation because you were taught that way and feel it is the more or only correct version of the language, if you do some simple research you will understand the difference. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.164.247 (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct name usage?
The article continually refers to Mr. Inarritu as "Alejandro," which seems inappropriately informal. Is there a specific cultural reason it would be correct to refer to him in this way, or should the article change to his last name?Mr Subtlety (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead paragraph state the genres of Mr.Iñárritu's films, based on WP:RS?
Should the lead paragraph state the genres of Mr.Iñárritu's films, based on WP:RS? OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 23:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC) The second paragraph of the lead is proposed as: González Iñárritu is the first Mexican director to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Director and by the Directors Guild of America for Best Director. He is also the first Mexican director to have won the Prix de la mise en scene or best director award at Cannes (2006), the second one being Carlos Reygadas in 2012 and the third Amat Escalante in 2013. His five feature films, the drama-thriller Amores perros (2000), the dramas 21 Grams (2003), Babel (2006), and Biutiful (2010), and the dark comedy film Birdman (2014), have gained critical acclaim worldwide and have all been nominated at the Academy Awards. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 23:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

 * COMMENT - My advice would be to avoid mentioning genre unless there is very wide agreement among the sources as to which genres apply - My experience from other articles is that there is often disagreement among sources as to genre... and this often leads to POV edit wars, as editors cherry pick the sources that support their own views on which genre applies to the subject. Whether this is the case with Mr.Iñárritu's films or not I don't know. Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not needed. Certainly not needed to clutter the lead paragraph. If there is genuine need to mention the genre of an individual film in this of any director's article, it should be in the body text; it's too fine a detail for the lead. And even then it is probably not really needed, unless it's really relevant. Genres can be contentious, as Blueboar noted, but even more so, it's the sort of detail that belongs in the article on the film, not the director. oknazevad (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not necessary per oknazevad's comment. The lead looks fine as it is now, with respect to this.

I really don't understand why editors want to prohibit making easy for readers to quickly learn about the genres of films a director produces. So in the George Romero lede, you wouldn't mention that he made his name making zombie films? I really don't understand this way of thinking. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Content removal
GiantSnowman removed a large portion of this article's content with the summary "remove unreferenced information - please add a reliable source". I reverted this edit with the summary "the article provides woefully incomplete coverage of the subject without this content. I added the Refimprove tag to address the concern." GiantSnowman reverted my edit, saying "'Woefully incomplete' though the article might now be, it is actually infinitely more appropriate. We cannot have masses of unreferenced content about living people per WP:BLP and WP:V."

I believe that the content should stay in the article. According to WP:BLP and WP:V, unsourced content that is "challenged," "likely to be challenged," or "contentious" must be removed. This material is none of those things. It is uncontroversial, verifiable coverage of the director's career. I believe a better course of action would be to restore the material with the Refimprove tag at the top to alert readers that some content is unreferenced and to give editors the opportunity to find citations. --Albany NY (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But the information has been challenged, hasn't it? Also if it's so easily verifiable then do it, and then we have no problems. GiantSnowman 18:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I don't think deleting the content is the same thing as challenging it. You removed the text because it lacks inline citations; you did not make an assertion that the facts are wrong. I quick glance at his IMDb page (which is already linked to in the external links) shows that some of the content (such as his short films) checks out. I wish I had time to find references for everything. Sadly I don't, but that doesn't mean the content shouldn't be in the article. I expect it was added by good faith editors in the days before inline citations were the norm. --Albany NY (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The assumption should always be that when somebody removes content, they are challenging it - that is certainly what I was doing. I have no idea if the 'facts' asserted are correct or not, so we should always err on the side of caution. GiantSnowman 09:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Name redirect
Currently, the name "Alejandro G. Iñárritu" does not redirect to the article, but it probably should, considering that was his official credit on "Birdman", and also, as the Fox website appears to imply, for "The Revenant" as well:. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Created the redirect. Lapadite (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Spanish naming custom
The article currently uses Spanish naming customs, however it's used inconsistently. Two edits have removed some usage of "González Iñárritu" and left "Iñárritu". Should the article refer to its subject as González Iñárritu or as Iñárritu? Lapadite (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps worth noting that the Spanish language version of the article does refer to him as "González Iñárritu". Though on the other hand, if he's now credited in English as "Alejandro G. Iñárritu", it's possible that "Iñárritu" is the right way to refer to him in English? Tahnan (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

For short he would customary be referred as "Alejandro González" in a spanish-speaking environment. I'm guessing (from experience) that he has chosen to showcase his second last name due to the fact that González is an extremely common last name, but Iñárritu isn't. But that doesn't change the fact that his first last name is González. I think it should be left there. Gdzlg (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

 * He has chosen to credit himself as Alejandro G. Iñárritu. Clearly the article should respect that. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Even if he does sometimes credit himself with “G.”, it looks ignorant that the article starts with the transcluded explanation of Spanish naming customs and then ignores those customs. González Iñárritu throughout, please, as in the Spanish page. - Barbicels 01:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.65.107 (talk)
 * That's what this discussion is about; if the article should keep Spanish naming customs. If the subject is not using it, and reliable sources are not using it, why should the article? Lapadite (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A potential reason might be recentism. I'm currently on the fence as to whether the use of "G." over "González" is prominent enough to be used throughout the article and maybe have the page renamed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

 * González is not the middle name: it's the last name of the father of the film director. Since I live in a Spanish-speaking country, here it would make no sense to call him, "Alejandro G. Iñárritu". If so called, people would believe in Mexico that "Iñárritu" is the father's last name, while actually it's his mother's last name. This American fad sounds ignorant and bad for the POV of a native Spanish speaker. In all newspapers in the Spanish language, they cite his real last name in full: González, not as an initial. --Cesar Tort 12:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

He has been credited since 2014 as Alejandro G. Iñárritu; That was by his own choice. It has held for the last seven years. Most sources now respect and use that name. Thus it has now become his WP:COMMONNAME. Following WP policy, this page should change the name of the article as well. Gothicfilm (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu Headshot.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Iñárritu and The Revenant.jpg

title: Talk:Alejandro González Iñárritu