Talk:David Rohl – geographical theories

I object to the term 'Maverick'. Please can you use an adjective which is not a pejorative or no adjective at all! And may I ask why there is a separate Wikipedia page for 'David Rohl - geographical theories' rather than simply adding this to the already existing 'David Rohl' page?David Rohl (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've said just this at the existing David Rohl page. This can be turned into a redirect to your page, and anything useful put there. I've also asked about a statement at Garden of Eden that you say there were two Edens. Dougweller (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"Maverick" is a positive description, not pejorative at all. Das Baz, aka Erudil 20:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into New Chronology (Rohl). For a merger, 4 votes: David Rohl; Dougweller; CUSH; and TuckerResearch; Against a merger, 1 vote: Das Baz. Since there hasn't been anymore activity, merge I say. -- TuckerResearch (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

---

MERGE This article is superfluous. Das Baz gets a little carried away in his recent fandom of Rohl. I have no intention to go through all the discussions of the past 2 years all over again. CUSH 20:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. MERGE. This article is unnecessary. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As much as I like, appreciate, and agree with Rohl, this page doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Do Not merge. Better to keep chronology and geography distinct and separate. Also, please avoid ad hominem. Das Baz, aka Erudil 20:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

For what reason? Although geographic identifications are part of the NC theory, they are not particular to the theory. Just create a new section in the NC article to mention them as a bullet list and all will be fine. CUSH 07:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, that should suffice. TuckerResearch (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.