Talk:Ron Wyatt

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.

Ron Wyatt was not an archaeologist

@Srich32977: 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)

If you think that being called a professional archaeologist is based on doing an excavation that went nowhere than you need to educate yourself. In any case, we are talking about archaeologist as a profession not it's defention.

Regarding the rest of your comment, I highly doubt that you can tell the difference between actual facts and knowledge ::Vs misinformation and lies. As a side note Ron Wyatt would be considered as a pseudo-archaeologist given his claims. Question169 (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Question169 Wow. When I was a junior professor at a university I also managed find the time to do 80% of the first year of an archaeology degree. A number of my friends today are professional archaeologists. The article calls him a pseudo archaeologist as you suggest. Your insults are just silly. @Joe Roe: do you want to comment? Doug Weller talk 08:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

By all accounts, Ron Wyatt would be considered a pseudo archaeologist given his reputation. Unless, you argue that there is truth to his claims? Question169 (talk) 09:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Now you are being silly. Obviously there's no truth in his claims. See my edits to the article. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I think you are misreading my comments, I am not stating that Ron Wyatt was correct in any way shape of form. My comments towards the IP user is based on his insane anti intellectual statements. Question169 (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice you were responding to the IP Doug Weller talk 11:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm new here, is there a way to make a specific response or does making a reply alert everyone? Question169 (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

You did it correctly, I misread. Doug Weller talk 11:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Digging holes your garden doesn't make you an archaeologist (wtf?) We try not to gatekeep in the modern profession, but it is still a profession (one that is chartered/licensed in several countries), and "amateur" or "avocational" archaeology still implies some degree of training and mainstream acceptance. I'm also curious about what RSes say (if anything) about Wyatt. – Joe (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I think I misspoke in my original comment, I'm talking about archaeologist in the professional sense not the amateur sense. That said Ron Wyatt, didn't receive any training or anything to make him a professional archeologist Question169 (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Month old comment but it's worth noting that Ron Wyatt did not receive any training and his claims are rejected by mainstream academia. Also I don't think digging holes in your garden actually makes you an archaeologist. I highly recommend you read up about Ron Wyatt claims and why he is not taken seriously. Seriously this is embarrassing. Question169 (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Question169 Who are you replying to? Doug Weller talk 07:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Adding on to my previous comment regarding Joe. Are you incapable of doing basic reading? Question169 (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

And yet another insult. @Joe Roe and I are happy with Wyatt being called a pseudoarchaeologist. What's your problem with that? Doug Weller talk 12:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

My issue is with your initial hostility towards me and being unable to discern who I am responding to. I expect better from this website. Question169 (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

So my apology wasn't good enough? And that's your only problem, right? You agree with me on the issue? Doug Weller talk 13:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

My issue has more to do with the tone of the Wikipedia talk pages. The disparity between the article and the talk pages is insane to say the least. No offense, but you guys really need to be more ban happy, especially with IP address users. Question169 (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure about bans as most are one off, but both of us revert a lot of stuff from talk pages pwe WP:NOTFORUM Doug Weller talk 15:12, 6 May 2025 (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)

Why should we call him an amateur archaeologist? He went to mount Ararat. He doesn't understand rock formations, knows nothing about geology, doesn’t know how to use ground radar and how to interpret the results. I don’t know if it was Ron Wyatt but I saw a certain webpage claim that they sent samples to a lab and they said they found iron, manganese, aluminium. No mention of silicon, oxygen or silicates or silicon dioxide. I have seen this claim appear in some televangelist show on Youtube. The priest or televangelist actually believed that Noah used aluminium in his alloy. Come on! This is crap. The level of nonesense is just too much. There is too much desperation from YEC people. They setup websites for Ron Wyatt and even have a museum. Before setting up websites and museums and building a giant Ark museum in Kentucky, how about doing step 1 properly? Gather some good data. Vmelkon (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

The Placed and Time source found by @Gråbergs Gråa Sång below describes Wyatt as a self-styled biblical archaeologist while the Raiders of the Lost Ark source calls him an amateur archaeologist. Simonm223 (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Christian Courier has him as a amateur pseudo-archaeologist. This image sparked Wyatt’s interest and was the beginning of a long amateur career as a sensationalist pseudo-archaeologist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

That's about as good a summary description as one can get. Use it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:59, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. Seems like a reasonable summary of sources. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Keeping in mind WP:PARITY, here's a couple secondary sources I found that might be helpful. . I'm trying to dig up some more. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

LOL! I was coming here with PARITY concerns in mind, and low and behold, you beat me to it. Great! Yes, PARITY does apply here, so we do accept some sources that might be borderline or unusable elsewhere. This is very fringe stuff. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:51, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

One problem here is that the most comprehensive works are books by other Ark hunters and publications such as BAR. Reputable sources usually have a snippet or one or two paragraphs and sometimes just cite creationists debunkings such as Snelling or Morris. I don't think WP:PARITY is really needed, there are good sources, just not any comprehensive ones. The most comprehensive i've seen is Sacred Relics by the Standish brothers listing 92 discoveries by Wyatt. Think i would need some kind of special OR and RS dispensation to use that, but i really want to get "92 claimed discoveries" into the article somehow, and something about his relationship to Adventist archaeology. fiveby(zero) 23:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

How is that an RS? Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

It is not of course, isn't that what i said? Neither are the Creation Ex Nihilo articles from Morris and Snelling published by Creation Ministries International and Biblical Archaeology Review not much better. Lorence G. Collins has a few articles such as this. Wyatt is such a fraud that he makes other creationists and ark hunters look bad, so they are the most comprehensive in describing and debunking his "discoveries". None of those sources are really trustworthy. Might possibly use them when cited by more reputable sources but not a first choice.

There are some reputable sources: Burleigh, Longman, Melton, Qguz and more. These usually only have a paragraph or two tho and lack biographical details. fiveby(zero) 13:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

https://ronwyatt.com/video-gallery could have some WP:ABOUTSELF use if needed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

If it helps, JSTOR has a 2007 undergraduate honors thesis by a Meghan Strong titled "The Indiana Jones Effect" which seems on-topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Some interesting hits from the WP:LIBRARY:

• Noah's Ark near Dogubayazit, Turkey? Lorence G. Collins, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
• PLACE & TIME: Wyatt Archaeological Museum. Reports of the National Center for Science Education. Winter2021, Vol. 41 Issue 1, p11-11. 2/3p.
• Raiders of the Lost Ark. Swiss American Historical Society Review. Feb2020, Vol. 56 Issue 1, p21-40. 20p. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Ron_Wyatt#Sources

@Blepbob Noting that this section is for stuff that's actually used for citations in the article. In its current form, we could move almost all of it to a Template:Refideas on the talkpage, very little in this list belong in the current article. If stuff here is useful as sources, use it as sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I've been doing that also, listing works in the bibliography for planned use. I'll stop and try to start actually writing something. fiveby(zero) 13:05, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, work in progress is perfectly respectable! At some point though, what's not used as sources should be kicked out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I've added a rudimentary "Media attention" section for the sources I added. Hopefully it meets inspection. Blepbob (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Apparently he got some attention in Turkey. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was prior discussion already with a list of sources.

I wasn't previously aware of this article, just driving by from checking out of one the noticeboards. I saw an editor had cut the previous "Reception" section asking Is there any secondary coverage of this? and was curious if I could find any. I didn't mean to step on ongoing efforts. I'm going to shift my focus. Blepbob (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2026 (UTC)