Talk:Mountains of Ararat

Judaism Mid‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkey

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Armenia

	Mountains of Ararat is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Comment

I took out the paragraph quoted below. It may be right, but it has little to do with this 'pedia entry. The entry already says the story is biblical. Whether you take the bible as historical or not is another subject.

"Fundamentalist believers of the various Abrahamic religions characteristically accept the Genesis account as historical in every detail, while other believers balance the findings of modern science and consider Genesis as a mix of historical and mythological detail which may nonetheless be inspired (the position of both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches)."

Also, the meaning of the sentences below is not clear. I am guessing that the writer is not a native English speaker, and something has gotten lost in translation. Can anyone clarify?: "An alternative identification is with Urartu people ("Urartu" may possibly be cognate with "Ararat"). This culture was centered around Mount Van in Armenia during Biblical times ( Currently it is in Turkey). Mount Ararat has the distinction of holding this tradition in its name and among its surrounding cultures for centuries, and is also geographically within ancient Urartu, giving it the most legitimate potential claim as the Biblical Ararat." --Ssilvers 15:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Mount Ararat is only called that from the 9th century AD onwards, named after the biblical narrative. ♆ CUSH ♆

Merging

These articles should NOT be merged because the "mountains of Ararat" are obviously not refering to the single Mount Ararat. In fact, it is possible (maybe even more likely) that the two are different. mikey 20:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. -- Ssilvers 04:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - the articles should be merged as this article on the Mountains (as in range) only discusses the biblical references and offers no geological and little in geographical information. Therefore it makes no difference if we are discussing he mountain singular or the range as a whole.

I removed the merge tag, since it's been there for several months with only an anonymous supporter. The content of the article, which is a discussion of a biblical topic, is largely separate, IMO from the content of the Mount Ararat article, and it appears that it deserves its own treatment rather than being buried in the other article, which is about a geographic entity. -- Ssilvers 14:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google earth

I decided to look for Noah's ark on google earth, but the mountain has a cloud over it. :( Hypershock (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "cloud"? Crivens, that's not a cloud, that's the CIA censoring the satellite imagery because they don't want you to find out the truth! --dab (𒁳) 20:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

actually, you are in luck. If you want to look for the real ark remnants ("real" of course in the sense of the actual remains so identified in Al-Masudi in the 10th century, not the "ark" of "4000 BC"), you don't need that cloud, you should check out this area, see Mount Judi. --dab (𒁳) 15:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

"Armenia" appears at least since the 6th century inscription at Behistun (in Persian). Also, some parts of the Bible refer to "Armenia." Serouj (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The toponym Armenia indeed dates to at least the late 6th century BC. What is your point? We can be certain that Armenia was the exonym for the region in Greek and Persian from around 500 BC. This doesn't explain the ultimate origin of the name, but it (the name) may be much older, see Armenia (name). I am not sure what this is supposed to prove. The name Britain also likely dates to the 6th century BC, as do many other toponyms. Of course, names can refer to vastly different entities over the history of their usage. --dab (𒁳) 13:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The kingdom was called Arminya at Behistun. That's an exonym. Not sure where you're getting Herodotus from... Serouj (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herodotus mentions Armenioi "Armenians". That's an exonym for the inhabitants of the region. I am not sure when Armenia itself first appears in Greek sources, we'll have to check. --dab (𒁳) 20:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the Behistun inscription is in Persian by King Darius. Serouj (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed?

"The Book of Jubilees specifies that the Ark came to rest on one of the peaks of the "Mountains of Ararat" called "Lubar".[citation needed]" I am removing the "Citation needed" as The Book of Jubilees... IS the citation. That's just plain stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.5.146 (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Citation needed" only says that you should specify the passage in which the Book of Jubilees describes the landing of the Ark. You can't just use an entire book as a reference. ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the entire article has virtually no citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.46.192.15 (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]