Talk:Bat Creek inscription
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Comments
- It's funny that the same "experts" who argue so vehemently that the inscription isn't Hebrew also argue that it is a forgery by a member of the Smithsonian team who wanted noteriety. How bright can the detractors be if they don't recognize those positions are mutually exclusive? On the one hand, you'd have to be an idiot to think it's Hebrew -- then at the same time, it is Hebrew, but it's a forgery.
- I have copies of some of the articles, and will try to add footnotes (if I have not thrown the articles away) in the next few months. For the record, I am not Mormon (meaning I did not initiate this article to further a religious agenda) nor am I convinced that this is a first century trans-oceanic voyage. However, I am originally from Tennessee and view this as a fascinating bit of U.S. history that is worth an article. --Baxterguy (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Who makes those conflicting claims? I've put a link to one of the two Kwas and Mainfort articles I have on my web site.--Dougweller (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Geology
What does this article have to do with Geology? Bms4880 (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I guess it must of snuck in there by being part of Category:Stones, maybe that's been done automatically? I have to say that I don't think it should be included, as the rock type doesn't even get a mention. Mikenorton (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- There we go, I removed the banner. Also removed the Stones category and the Ancient Roman Jewish History categories from the article.Doug Weller (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Categories: Start-Class United States articles | Low-importance United States articles | Start-Class Tennessee articles | Low-importance Tennessee articles | Tennessee articles without listas parameter | Start-Class Archaeology articles | Low-importance Archaeology articles | Start-Class Rational Skepticism articles | Low-importance Rational Skepticism articles